Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.1987 passed by the learned first appellate court, whereby while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.12.1985 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 09.02.1983 (Ex.P14) on payment of balance sale price, alternative suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of the amount of earnest money paid by them along with interest was decreed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are five brothers. They had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants, who are husband and wife, for purchase of 72 kanals 10 marlas of land for a consideration of 63,437.50 at the rate of 7,000/- per acre. The said agreement was executed on 09.02.1983 and an earnest amount of 25,000/- was paid. According to the agreement, sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 15.05.1983. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in spite of notice given, the defendants did not turn up to execute the sale deed. On the other hand, the defendants did not dispute the execution of the said agreement. However, it was pleaded by them that vide endorsement dated 13.05.1983 made on the back of the agreement, the agreement was cancelled as the plaintiffs had agreed not to purchase the said land, and it was agreed that the defendants will return the earnest money to the plaintiffs by 31.05.1983.
(3.) The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance, while coming to the conclusion that the agreement of sale dated 09.02.1983 (Ex.P14) has duly been proved. It was further held that the endorsement dated 13.05.1983 (Ex.D1) made on the back of the agreement was not signed by the plaintiffs and it was only signed by defendant No.1, therefore, the said endorsement cannot be said to be a valid contract between the parties to rescind and revoke the previous agreement.;