- (1.) The plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for specific performance in respect of agreement dated 7.1.1997 by stating that the defendants were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 38 kanals 16 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Kakheri, Tehsil Guhla and an agreement had been entered into to sell such suit land for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- on 7.1.1997. It was pleaded that the defendants were given Rs.2,50,000/- towards earnest money and the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 15.6.1997. It was also pleaded that by mutual consent the date for execution of the sale deed was extended up to 15.6.1998 on 13.6.1997 and on such date a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs-appellants to the defendants. The plaintiffs-appellants stated that on 15.6.1998 they were present in the office of Sub Registrar, Guhla along with the balance sale consideration but the defendants did not turn up. Plaintiffs-appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and against such factual backdrop the suit had been instituted for specific performance of the agreement dated 7.1.1997 and as an alternative relief, it was also prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs.4 lacs along with interest be passed. 2. The suit was contested and the defendants set up a case of denial. The receipt of earnest money of Rs.2,50,000/- on 7.1.1997 and further receipt of additional earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- on 13.6.1997 was denied. It was stated that the agreement dated 7.1.1997 and the alleged endorsement thereupon dated 13.6.1997 as also the receipt showing payment of earnest money were forged documents. The defendants further pleaded that Baso Ram, plaintiff-appellant no.2 was in fact running a Commission Agency under the name and style of M/s Babu Ram Baso Ram. The defendants used to sell their agricultural produce through such Commission Agency and it was possible that the plaintiffs-appellants may have succeeded in obtaining the thumb impression of the defendants on some blank papers. As such it was pleaded that upon the defendants having refused to sell their agricultural produce through the Agency being run by the plaintiff-appellant no.2, the forged documents have been created to harass them.
(3.) Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck by the Trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.1.1997 OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property OPP 3. Whether the agreement cannot be enforced OPD;