- (1.) THIS Second Appeal, preferred un der Section 100 of the Code of Civil Pro cedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-08-1987, passed by III Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1986, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20-01-1986, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Roorkee), in Original Suit No. 120 of 1970, decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract, is affirmed. (Earlier Tehsil Roorkee was part of District Saharanpur ).
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs Ishaq and Hamid (respondents No. 1 and 2) instituted Original Suit No. 120 of 1970, initially, against defendant No. 1 Rahmati, for relief of injunction and later impleading other defendants No. 2 to 9 (present appellants / subse quent purchasers) sought relief of spe cific performance of contract, executed by Smt. Rahmati (defendant No. 1) on 21st July 1970, for sale of land in suit for Rs. 15,000/-, after accepting Rs. 9,000/- as payment of part considera tion. The land in suit is situated in Vil lage Mauja Kharenja Qutubpur and Mauja Nagla Khitab, both within the limits of Pargana Jawalapur details of which are at the foot of the plaint wherein, the plot numbers and the area are mentioned. The plaintiffs' case is that defendant Smt. Rahmati was re quired to execute the sale deed by 20-01-1971, as agreed by her, after accept ing remaining Rs. 6. 000/-, but instead of honouring the agreement of sale, she ex ecuted sale deed on 25-03-1971 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 9. It is alleged in the plaint that defendants No. 2 to 9 were fully aware of the agreement of sale be tween Rahmati and the plaintiffs. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plain tiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and invited Rahmati to execute the sale deed. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendants No. 2 to 9 are bound to honour with defendant No. 1, to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in pursuance to the agreement of sale dated 21-07-1970. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Rahmati filed her written statement before the trial court in which she admitted having executed agreement of sale on 21-07-1970 in respect of the land in suit. She also admitted having received part con sideration of Rs. 9,000/-as pleaded by the plaintiffs. However, in additional pleas she stated that being an old lady, she reposed her trust on her brother, who took her to defendants No. 2 to 9 and got her thumb impression on some blank papers. In her written statement, she admitted having handed over possession of the land in suit to plaintiffs, at the time of execution of agreement of sale.
(3.) BUT the defendants No. 2 to 9 contested the suit and filed their written statement challenging the contents of the plaint. It is pleaded by the contest ing defendants (present appellants) that no agreement was executed by Rahmati in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further pleaded by them that defendants pur chased the land in March 1971, after making payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the transferor (Rahmati ). It is further pleaded by the contesting defendants / appellants that had no knowledge of agreement of sale executed by Rahmati, in favour of the plaintiffs. . On objection of the defendants, le gs' guardian of defendant No. 9 was ap pointed by the trial court, before proceed ing further in the suit, who during the pendency of suit attained age of majority.;