SHANTI DEVI & ORS Vs. PANNALAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Beawar, Ajmer whereby the learned Magistrate has decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. The appellants are also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Beawar, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2005, and has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff No.1, Panna Lal, filed a civil suit against the appellants-defendants and the respondents-defendants, for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.7.1986 executed by Gokul Shyam, the husband of appellant No.1, in favour of the plaintiff. The appellants-defendants filed their written statement denying the fact of execution of any agreement to sell by Gokul Shyam, who had expired, in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight issues, including the one of relief. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses, namely P.W.1, Panna Lal Solanki, and P.W. 2, Jagdish, were examined, and eleven documents were produced. On the other hand, the defendants also examined two witnesses, namely D.W.1, Rajendra, and D.W. 2, Surendra. No documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the defendants. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 27.4.2005. The appellants-defendants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2005, which was dismissed by the learned first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012. Hence, this second appeal before this court.

(3.) Mr. J.K. Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the learned Magistrate has framed issue No.7, whether the Plots No.1, 2 and 3 were carved out of Khasra No.11 or not According to the learned trial court, since neither of the parties had led any evidence, nor argued on the said issue, finding on the said issue was given against the appellants/defendants.