JUDGMENT 1. - This is plaintiff's appeal u/O. 43, R. 1(A) CPC against the order dated 26.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, Camp Anupgarh in civil original suit No. 9/96 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant u/O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 6.10.1980 alleged to have executed by Natharam father of the defendant-respondent. According to the agreement deceased Natharam agreed to sell the agricultural land mentioned therein for a sum of Rs. 57,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 6,750/- was paid by the plaintiff-appellant to the said Natharam and the remaining amount was to be paid according to the dates mentioned in the agreement. The plaintiff-appellant stated that before filing the suit only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- remained to be paid to the said Natharam. Natharam died and the defendant-respondent is the sole legal representative of the said Natharam. 3. The plaintiff-appellant prayed for a decree of specific performance in respect of the agricultural land mentioned in the agreement in his favour. He was prepared to pay the remaining amount. The sale-deed may also be got registered at the instance of the defendant. 4. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was resisted by the defendant-respondent on the ground that the land in question was allotted to Shri Natharam. The land was gair khatedari inasmuch as the Khatedari rights are not conferred on the allottee till he pays all the instalments in respect of the above land. The said Natharam, therefore, was not competent to alienate the above land on 6.10.1980 by the alleged agreement. It was also averred by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff also filed a suit claiming the above land on the basis of a will executed by the said Natharam in his favour. The suit was filed in the Court of Assistant Collector, Anupgarh under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant then filed an appeal before the A.D.M. that too was dismissed. Thereafter a revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue that too was dismissed. The defendant respondent has also alleged that the above agreement is a forged document inasmuch as it is alleged to have been executed on 6.10.1980 whereas the stamp papers on it was written were purchased on 30.6.1991. Thereafter a revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue that too was dismissed. The defendant respondent has also alleged that the above agreement is a forged document inasmuch as it is alleged to have been executed on 6.10.1980 whereas the stamp papers on it was written were purchased on 30.6.1991. The learned Additional District Judge heard both the parties and after appreciation of the documents and the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant could not prove a prima facie case in his favour. Learned Additional District Judge also remarked that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands inasmuch as he has not disclosed about the litigation undertaken by him with regard to the will allegedly executed by Natharam in his favour. He, therefore, dismissed the above application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conclusions which were drawn by the learned Additional District Judge against the plaintiff were not justified inasmuch as true facts can only be revealed by the evidence of the parties. He has stated that the instalments were also paid by the plaintiff on behalf of Natharam. Natharam was, therefore, having right to alienate the above land in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the impugned order and submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and has rendered a rational order requiring no interference in this appeal. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. I have also perused the impugned order. The learned trial Court while examining the point whether the plaintiff has got a prima facie case or not examined all the relevant circumstances as also the litigation undertaken by the plaintiff with regard to the will allegedly executed by Natharam in his favour in respect of the above land. He also took into consideration that the stamp papers were, according to the endorsement made by the stamp vendor on the stamps, purchased on 30.6.1991. The agreement is alleged to have been executed by the said Natharam on 6.10.1980. How an agreement dated 6.10.1980 could be written on stamp papers which were purchased on 30.6.1991? He also took into consideration that the stamp papers were, according to the endorsement made by the stamp vendor on the stamps, purchased on 30.6.1991. The agreement is alleged to have been executed by the said Natharam on 6.10.1980. How an agreement dated 6.10.1980 could be written on stamp papers which were purchased on 30.6.1991? Learned trial Court has also referred the fact that the plaintiff filed a suit under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in respect of the will allegedly executed by Natharam in his favour whereunder the above land was willed in favour of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and it is made the same fate in appeal and revision. 9. In view of the above finding of the trial Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******