BHERULAL & ORS. Vs. SHRIRAM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal to challenge the impugned Judgment and decree dated 8.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District-Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed suit of the appellants for specific performance of contract and cancellation of sale-deed as barred by limitation.

(2.) The bare necessary facts, for adjudication of lis involved in the present Appeal, are that appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract against first respondent Shriram and cancellation of sale-deed, executed by Shriram in favour of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In the plaint, it is inter alia, averred that respondent, Shriram, executed an agreement to sale dated 27.3.1978 in favour of appellant's father, Bhagu for a consideration amount of Rs.4,500.00 for one-forth of his agricultural land measuring 0.90 hectare jointly owned by him and his three brothers. It is also averred in the plaint that since Unkar Lal had no issue, he sold his one-forth share in favour of Respondent-Defendant No. 2-Uda through a registered sale-deed dated 24.12.1979 as such Bhagu and Uda became owners of the property. The appellant-plaintiffs have further averred in the plaint that their father expired 15 years ago and many a times they requested Shriram for registration of the sale-deed dated 27.3.1978 but he did not do so. It is also averred that after death of their father, Shriram sold one-third land to Respondent-Defendants No. 3 and 4 registered sale-deed dated 3.6.2008 although the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question.

(3.) Respondent-Defendants No. 1 and 2 die not file their written statements. Respondent-Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed written statement and denied that respondent defendant No. 1 sold the land to Bhagu on 27.3.1978. They also denied possession of Bhagu over the land in question. It is also stated that Bhagu expired 15 years ago and since then the plaintiffs have not staked claim for the land in question. Respondents No. 3 and 4 also stated that they are the bona fide purchasers. They further claimed that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs have undervalued the suit and paid inadequate Court Fees.