KESHARBAI Vs. LAKHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission. This appeal under Sec. 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2019 passed in Regular Civil Appeal 20-A/2017 and 21-A/2017 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shujalpur arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 10/8/2017 passed in Civil Suit No.136- A/2017 by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, District Shujalpur whereby their claim for specific performance of contract dtd. 18/4/1989 and for permanent injunction has been dismissed and the counter claim of defendant No.1/appellants has been decreed.

(2.) As per plaintiffs, Lakhanlal Nai, defendant No.1, was the owner of the suit land bearing survey No.454/3 area 0.418 hectare Gram Pipliya Nagar, Tehsil Kalapipal, District Shajapur. On 18/4/1989 he entered into an agreement with Chhotelal, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 7 for sale of the suit land in his favour at the rate of 2000/- per bigha. An agreement was also executed between them in that regard on 18/4/1989 upon payment of an amount of Rs.4000.00 by Chhotelal to defendant No.1 followed by delivery of possession. Chhotelal remained in possession of suit land during his lifetime and after him the plaintiffs have been in possession thereof. Chhotelal requested defendant No.1 for execution of the sale deed in his favour on a number of occasions but he refused to do so on some pretext or of the other. Upon death of Chhotelal, plaintiffs requested defendant No.1 for execution of the sale deed but he did not do so and in the year 2011 specifically stated that he shall not execute the sale deed leading to institution of the instant suit.

(3.) The defendant No.1 contested the plaintiffs' claim by filing his written statement submitting inter alia that no agreement to sale was executed between him and Chhotelal, that the agreement set up by plaintiffs is forged and fabricated, that he had purchased the suit land on 29/4/1981 by way of a registered sale deed and has been in possession thereof ever since then, that plaintiffs have forcibly taken possession of the suit land from him in 2009 and have illegally got their possession recorded over the suit land in the revenue records. The defendant No.1 also laid a counter claim for declaration of his title to the suit land, for possession of the same from plaintiffs and for mesne profit. The plaintiffs filed their written statement to the counter claim of defendant No.1.