- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court which on appeal affirmed that of the trial Judge whereby the suit of the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated May 30, 1983 regarding suit land was decreed.
(2.) The facts :- The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated May 30, 1983. The land was agreed to be sold for Rs. 49,000/-. Out of the total price, Rs. 30,000/- were paid as earnest money. The balance was to be paid to the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) at the time of registration of the sale-deed, on May 31, 1984. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at all material times. They came to the office of the Sub-Registrar on the date fixed with the balance sale price to get the sale-deed executed but the defendants did not turn up to execute the sale-deed. The plaintiffs sent letters dated January 10, 1984 and May 17, 1984 to the defendants intimating that they were ready and willing for the execution of the sale-deed and he should execute the sale-deed on the due date. The defendants did not turn up for execution of the sale-deed on the date fixed. The plaintiffs served a registered notice dated June 2, 1984. Nirmal Singh defendant No. 2 in breach of the terms of the agreement had executed sale-deed regarding land comprised in khasra No. 409/4/1(1-5)K M for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in favour of his brother defendant No. 3 on 30.5.1984. He executed another sale-deed dated 30.5.1984 in favour of defendant No. 1, his real brother, regarding land bearing Khasra No. 369/19.2/1/2(4-0) K M for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- Defendant No. 2 executed a fictitious mortgage-deed regarding part of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 4 on May 28, 1985 and a simple mortgage-deed was executed by defendant No. 1 regarding 1/3rd of the suit land in favour of State Bank of Patiala on October 8, 1986. The sales and mortgages were effected to deprive the plaintiffs of their just claim for specific performance of the agreement of sale.
(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 controverted the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the agreement for sale was without consideration. They had to pay a debt to the plaintiffs and the debt was discharged. The plaintiffs being clever persons got their thumb impressions on blank papers and prepared a forged document. They denied having executed any agreement of sale.;