- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 3.5.1983 by which appellants' suit was dismissed by the trial court and also aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 14.12.1985 by which appellants' appeal was dismissed.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 17.9.1969 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2-respondent for a consideration of Rs.2800/- and for declaration of the transaction dated 19.7.1966 to be mortgage and not sale. The plaintiff further prayed for specific performance of the contract of the same date,i.e., 19.7.1966 by which according to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell the same property to plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed decree for possession. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1-Udai Ram's (now deceased, father of defendants no.1 to 7) some money was due in Noor Mohd.(plaintiff No.3- appellant No.2). The account was settled and a sum of Rs.2500/- was found due as on 19.7.1966 in Noor Mohd.. In part payment of the said debt, Allabux, father of Noor Mohd. executed purported sale deed in favour of said Udai Ram on 19.7.1966. According to the plaintiffs, though the deed has been styled as sale-deed but in fact it was a mortgage by conditional sale. It is also pleaded that said Allabux had no intention to sell his house nor the defendant Udai Ram had any idea to purchase the said property. In fact the defendant sought security for his sum of Rs.1500/- and, therefore, an ostensible sale-deed was executed.;