- (1.) The second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 24/7/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.27/2012(11/2012)(19/2012), whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12/4/2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.17 of 2015 (17/2003).
(2.) It appears that the appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit before the Trial Court seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 4/7/1972 allegedly executed by the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 in favour of Shri Ram Chander, father of the appellant No.1, and in favour of the appellant No.2, and for setting aside the sale deed dated 16/2/2002 executed by the the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in respect of the disputed land. It was alleged by the appellants-plaintiffs that Ram Chander and Ram Kumar happened to be the real brothers, from whom the defendant No.2 Jagmal Singh had taken a sum of Rs.9000/- on 4/7/1972 by executing the agreement to sell and had handed over the possession of the suit land. Thereafter the defendant Jagmal Singh had filed one suit against the Ramchander, father of the appellant No.1 in the Revenue Court, which was subsequently withdrawn by him on 9/2/1984. The said defendant Jagmal Singh had also filed one application under Section 6 of the Debt Relief Act, however the said application was also dismissed by the competent Court. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, on 13/6/1985, when the defendant No.2 Jagmal Singh came to dispossess the appellants from the suit land, a quarrel had taken place on the spot and Shri Ram Chander, father of the appellant No.1 got killed, for which the defendant No.2 Jagmal Singh was convicted. According to the plaintiffs, they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract, however the defendant No.2 Jagmal Singh had refused to execute the sale deed and on the contrary executed sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1, and therefore the suit was filed.
(3.) The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing separate written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs against which the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree, against which the present second appeal has been filed.;