- (1.) The present appeal filed by the appellants-defendants under Section 100 of CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.188/2002, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.09.1995 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.108/1993, filed by the deceased respondent No.1 Kishan Lal Sethi, the original plaintiff.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the original-plaintiff Kishan Lal Sethi (deceased respondent No.1 herein) had filed the suit on 14.09.1983 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 15.09.1980, alleging interlia that the original-defendant Radhey Shyam Modi (deceased respondent No.2 herein) had executed the agreement in question in respect of the property described in para 1 of the plaint, and that the plaintiff had paid Rs.20,000/- on 15.09.1980 and had agreed to pay rest of the amount at the time of the execution of the registered sale deed. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was put in possession of the property as mentioned in the said agreement. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, and he had also given notice to the defendant, however the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, and therefore the suit was filed. The original-defendant Radhey Shyam resisted the suit by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contended interalia that no such agreement as alleged was executed by him and that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in question by virtue of his being tenant, however he was not paying the rent to him. It appears that during the pendency of the said suit, the original-defendant Radhey Shyam sold out the suit property to the appellants (original defendant Nos.2 & 3) by executing the sale deed on 23.01.1988. The present appellants therefore made an application in the year 1993 to implead them as party defendants in the suit. They having been subsequently impleaded as the party defendants in the suit, they had filed their written statement, contending interalia that the plaintiff was a property dealer and the plaintiff himself had arranged for the sale of property to one Abdul Sattar, however the said Abdul Sattar having refused to purchase the said property, an agreement with him was cancelled, and therefore the said property was purchased by them.
(3.) The trial court from the pleadings of the parties had framed as many as 10 issues, and after appreciating the evidence on record, had decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 15.09.1995. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants i.e. the subsequent purchasers had preferred the appeal before the appellate court, which also came to be dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed.;