PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1981, passed by learned District Judge, Chamoli, in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1980, whereby the said appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 14.7.1981, passed, by the Munsif Karanprayag in O.S. No. 12 of 1979, is affirmed.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Brief facts of the case are that the parties to this litigation are residents of Village Sankote, P.O. Nakholi, Pargana Karanprayag, district Chamoli. They are related to each other by the following pedigree: Madan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Jaimi | | (after death of Madan his widow married to Jaimi) Dublu Lachhmu | - - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| | | | | | Kalam Bali Raghubir Balbir Baisakhi Ram Ram Lal Lal (Defendant No. 1) (Plaintiff (Plaintiff (Plaintiff (Plaintiff No. 1) No. 2) No. 3) No. 4} As such, Dublu and Lachhmu were uterine brothers. It is pleaded in the plaint that the land of Khata Khatoni No. 98 is the ancestral land of the plaintiffs. Since, Lachhmu also lived as brother with the father of plaintiffs, as such, his name also was later entered over the 13 -1/4 nali of land. Lachhmu had no issue, therefore, plaintiffs continued to cultivate his land. In 1974, Lachhmu has died. His widow Baisakhi (Defendant/respondent) executed an agreement dated 21.6.1978 for sale of 37 -3/4 nali of land (Including the 13 -1/4 nali of land of Khata No. 98) to the plaintiffs. She received a, consideration of Rs. 3,000 as a price of the land. However, she did not execute the sale deed. Meanwhile, defendants No. 2 and 3 namely, Prem Lal and Jhagri (appellants) got entered their names in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue officials. On this, defendants No. 2 and 3, on one hand and the plaintiffs on the other, quarrelled and proceedings under Section 107/116 of Cr. P.C. were drawn against them. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 Baisakhi, widow of Lachhmu, executed a sale deed dated 2.6.1979 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and transferred the aforementioned land in suit for a consideration of Rs. 5,000, to said two defendants (appellants). The plaintiffs on this filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.6.1979 and also suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.6.1978.
(3.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit and filed their written statements, in which it is pleaded that no agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 21.6.1978. It is also alleged that the agreement dated 21.6.1978 relied by the plaintiffs is a forged document. It is further pleaded that the mutation in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the revenue record is correct as the land has been transferred by defendant No. 1 Baisakhi to them after accepting consideration of Rs. 5,000.;