- (1.) The second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28/7/2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.44 of 2005, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 7/4/2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.119 of 1995.
(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 10/5/1990 executed by Shri Harnath-father of the respondent No.1-the defendant No.1, and for cancellation of the registered sale deed 30/6/1995 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2, as also for permanent injunction. It was alleged in the plaint inter-alia that the land in question belonged to Shri Harnath, father of the defendant No.1-Bhori Devi, who had agreed to sell the said land to the appellants-plaintiffs by executing an agreement dated 10/5/1990 for Rs.4,000/-. According to the appellants, the appellants had paid Rs.3,600/- in cash, and the remaining amount of Rs.400/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. However, the said Harnath thereafter did not execute the sale deed, and he expired on 25/8/1990. According to the appellants, they had asked the respondent No.1-the defendant No.1, who happened to be the daughter of the said Harnath, to execute the sale deed in their favour, however, she refused to do so, and subsequently, she sold out the said land to the respondent No.2-the defendant No.2 by executing a registered sale deed on 30/6/1995, and hence the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondents by filing separate written-statements denying the allegations levelled against them in the plaint. The respondent No.1 had denied about the execution of any agreement by her father in favour of the appellants. She had also denied the possession of the appellants in respect of the land in question. The respondent No.2 also contended that he had purchased the land in question from the respondent No.1 by executing a registered sale deed for consideration of Rs.25,000/-, and the same being legal and proper, the suit deserved to be dismissed. It appears that after filing of the written-statements, the respondents-defendants did not appear in the suit proceedings and also did not lead any evidence, and therefore, the Trial Court had recorded exparte proceedings against them on 5/5/2004.
(3.) The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs by restraining the respondents-defendants from dispossessing the appellants-plaintiffs from the suit land without following the due process of law, and further directing the respondent No.1-the defendant No.1 to pay Rs.3600/- to the appellants-plaintiffs with interest @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The Trial Court refused to grant the decree for specific performance, and also for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.;