JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal by the plaintiffs No. 2 to 7 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1989 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kis iangarhbas District Alwar in Civil Suit No. 24/84 Babulal and Others v. LRs of Bhagwan Kaur and another , whereby the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs.Briefly put the facts relevant are that the present appellants-Deegram, Shanti De Surendra Singh, Balveer Singh, Baghsingh and Sureshchand along with one Babulal filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement against Mst. Bhagwan Kaur and Suchcha Singh with the averments that agricultural land in Khasra No. 374 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas at village Dantla Tehsil Mundawar was the khatedari land of defendant No. 1 Bhagwan Kaur who entered into an agreement to sell the said land with the plaintiffs on 29.7.1984 for a consideration of Rs. 38,000/- and received Rs. 14,000/- from the plaintiffs that very day and delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. In relation to the transaction, an agreement to sell was got scribed from Gulabchand. Document Writer in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 put her thumb impression also thereupon and a receipt for the amount of Rs. 14,000/- was also executed on the agreement itself by putting thumb impression and the signatures of the witnesses also. The parties agreed that within a month of the agreement, sale document would be got registered, expenses would be borne by the plaintiffs and the remaining amount of Rs. 24,000/- would be received at the time of registration. According to the plaintiffs, they requested the defendant No. 1 to execute the sale document and got served a notice by registered post also on 17.9.1984 through their lawyer for execution of the sale document according to the agreement but defendant No. 1 denied the agreement and alleged the land in question having been sold to defendant No. 2 Suchcha Singh in the reply to the notice. The plaintiffs averred that Suchcha Singh, defendant No. 2 was the son of defendant No. 1 and the alleged sale deed was sham and fictitious inasmuch as in between the two, neither any amount has been exchanged nor possession has been transferred and this sale document has been executed only in order to grab the amount of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs averred that Suchcha Singh, defendant No. 2 was the son of defendant No. 1 and the alleged sale deed was sham and fictitious inasmuch as in between the two, neither any amount has been exchanged nor possession has been transferred and this sale document has been executed only in order to grab the amount of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs averred that they were always ready and willing to get the document executed in their favour. The plaintiffs claimed their entitlement to get the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 cancelled and were also entitled for injunction against the defendants for not interfering with their possession nor to alienate the property in question. The 35 plaintiffs further averred that cause of action for filing the suit arose on the date of agreement 29.7.1984, on the date of the sale deed dated 11.9.1984 and from the refusal on 20.9.1984. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for specific performance in their favour for the land in question against the defendants and for injunction and also prayed in the alternative that if the specific performance of the agreement was not possible then the amount of Rs. 14,000/- be awarded in their favour. The plaintiffs presented the plaint on 10.10.1984. 2. Summons to the defendants were issued. Defendants filed their written statement on 18.12.1984. Defendants denied any sale agreement having been executed on 29.7.1984 and alleged that the entire story was concocted and got prepared with the connivance of the son of defendant No. 1 Jangir Singh. Defendants also denied receiving of any amount of Rs. 14,000/- The receipt of the notice dated 17.9.1984 was admitted and it was averred that notice was replied on 20.9.1984 stating clearly that defendant No. 1 has sold the land of Khasra No. 374 to defendant No. 2 who was in possession of the same. The possession of the plaintiffs was specifically denied. In the additional submissions, the defendants stated that the defendant No. 1 was an old woman and her son Jangir Singh was acting against her interests and if he has got prepared some false document in connivance with the plaintiffs, then defendants were not bound by the same. The possession of the plaintiffs was specifically denied. In the additional submissions, the defendants stated that the defendant No. 1 was an old woman and her son Jangir Singh was acting against her interests and if he has got prepared some false document in connivance with the plaintiffs, then defendants were not bound by the same. Defendant No. 1 did not enter into any agreement for selling of the land to the plaintiffs nor executed any document Defendants also stated the relationship of the plaintiffs with the revenue authorities and municipal authorities and alleged that the plaintiffs or their kinsmen being the persons having connections have joined hands to forcibly take over and of the defendants. It was also pointed out that according to the alleged agreement itself, the plaintiffs are alleging a time of one month for getting the sale document registered but even the notice itself has been served fifteen days beyond one month and the suit was liable to be dismissed on this count also. 3. From the record of the trial court, in appears that Ehagwan Kaur -Defendant No. 1 expired on 20.3.1985 and on application having been moved on 24.4.1985 for substitution of legal representatives, the same was allowed on 22.11.1985 and legal representatives were ordered to be substituted in place of deceased defendant No. 1. However, in the meantime, an application was filed by the plaintiff No. 1 Babulal on 3.9.1985 in which the plaintiff Babulal stated that no such agreement as stated in the plaint was ever entered into, and therefore, this plaintiff was not willing to proceed with the suit and wanted his suit to be dismissed. After the substituted legal representatives were served. the learned trial court took up this application for consideration on 17.7.1987. The remaining plaintiffs had submitted a reply to this application stating that Babulal had joined hands with the defendants and has filed false application. They alleged that remaining plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. The learned trial court dismissed the application for the absence of Babulal but ordered that as the relief was inseparable, his absence would be of no effect. 4. They alleged that remaining plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. The learned trial court dismissed the application for the absence of Babulal but ordered that as the relief was inseparable, his absence would be of no effect. 4. The plaintiffs also moved an application on 15.1.1988 and sought amendment in the plaint to the effect that the relief against the sale deed dated 11.9.1984 was claimed for cancelling the same: that loss likely to be suffered by the plaintiffs cannot be compensated by payment of Rs. 14,000/- and therefore, they were entitled for the relief of specific performance; and that possession on the land was obtained by Deegram and Shanti Devi personally and on behalf of plaintiffs No. 4, 5 and 6 by their guardians and that plaintiff No. 1 has constructed house on his part. The learned trial court observed that by the proposed amendment, nature of the suit was not changed, and therefore: allowed the same by the order dated 18.4.1988. The amended plaint was filed or 2.5.1988 and the amended written statement was filed by defendant-Suchcha Singh on 1.6.1988 denying the additional plaint averments also. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed issues on 22.7.1988 on the following questions: (i) Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed the agreement to sell her khatedari land, Khasara No. 374/1 bigha 11 biswas with the plaintiffs for Rs. 38,000/- and towards this agreement received Rs.14,000/- cash from the plaintiffs and delivered possession of the land to the plaintiffs according to para 1 of the plaint and executed agreement with receipt in favour of the plaintiffs on 29.7.1984? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are and were always ready to perform their part according to the conditions of the agreement? (iii) Whether the agreement in favour of Suchcha Singh defendant was sham and fictitious without consideration and was null and ineffective against interest of the plaintiffs? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed and the defendants were entitled for special costs of Rs. 2000/- from the plaintiffs? (v) Relief? 6. (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed and the defendants were entitled for special costs of Rs. 2000/- from the plaintiffs? (v) Relief? 6. In the oral evidence, plaintiffs examined Ramchandra (PW1) father of the plaintiff-Baghsingn; Girwar (PW2), a witness to the disputed agreement; Gulabchand (PW3), scribe of the disputed agreement; Jangir Singh (PW4) son of Bhagwan Kaur, a witness to the disputed agreement; Iqbal Singh (PW5), grand son of Bhagwan Kaur another witness to the disputed agreement; Santok Singh (PW6) son of Bhagwan Kaur: Somnath Agarwal (PW7), Hand-Writing and Finger Print Expert; and Puran Singh (PW8) another witness to the disputed agreement. Defendants examined Suchcha Singh (DW1); Banwarilal (DW2), Patwari, Dantla; and Udaisingh (DW3), witness to the sale deed in favour of Suchcha Singh; and Chhotelal (DW4), another witness to the sale deed in favour of Suchcha Singh. In the documentary evidence, the plaintiffs produced disputed agreement dated 29.7.1984 with receipt as Ex.1, carbon copy of the notice dated 17.9.1984 as Ex.2, postal receipt as Ex.3, Jamabandi as Ex.4, Khasara Girdavari as Ex.5 the sale deed in relation to the land of Khasara No. 375 as Ex.6, a certified copy of the sale deed dated 11.9.1984 of the disputed land in favour of Suchcha Singh as Ex.7, acknowledgement of the notice as Ex.8, Jamabandi relating to Arazi No. 375 as Ex.9. Other documents produced on behalf of the plaintiffs relate to the reports of Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert, PW-7 wherein the enlargements of the questioned thumb impressions have been produced as Ex.10 to Ex.14, enlargements of specimen thumb impressions as Ex.15 to Ex.21, negatives as Ex.22 to Ex.26 and reports of the Expert as Ex.27 to Ex.28. The defendants on the other hand produced Ex.A1 the sale deed dated 11.9.1984 by Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Suchcha Singh. 7. The learned trial Judge after finally hearing the parties proceeded to decide the questions involved in the suit by the impugned judgment dated 5.8.1989. The learned Judge while considering the questions involved in issue No. 1 referred to the oral and documentary evidence and found that the plaintiffs were not able to establish that in fact an agreement was entered into with Bhagwan Kaur and Rs. 14,000/- were paid to her. The learned Judge while considering the questions involved in issue No. 1 referred to the oral and documentary evidence and found that the plaintiffs were not able to establish that in fact an agreement was entered into with Bhagwan Kaur and Rs. 14,000/- were paid to her. For arriving at this conclusion, the learned Judge referred to the stark contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses about time and place of execution of the agreement and of payment of the alleged amount of Rs. 14,000/-. The learned Judge also referred to the significant fact that in relation to other land, a sale deed (Ex.6) was executed by Bhagwan Kaur and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Mundawar on 27.7.1984 and the stamps for disputed agreement were also purchased on 27.7.1984 itself. The learned Judge found particularly with reference to the statement of PW5 Iqbal Singh that thumb impressions of Bhagwan Kaur were obtained at the house of Jamna Kaur and it appears that Jangir Singh got her thumb impressions on this document Ex.1 also at the house of Jamna Kaur. 8. Apart from the contradictions and telling circumstances which created doubt on the authenticity and validity of the agreement (Ex.1), the learned Judge also referred to the fact that none of the plaintiffs appeared in witness box and only PW1 Ramchandra, father of the one of the plaintiffs has been examined. Leaving aside other alleged minors, the learned Judge referred to the fact that consistently it was maintained that Deegram himself entered into the transaction and was of opinion that Deegram ought to have appeared in witness box. The learned Judge summed up the discussion by reference to the fact that PW5 Iqbal Singh and PW6 Santok Singh were not supporting the case of the plaintiffs and the statements of PW2 Girwar and PW8 Puran Singh, before whom the amount was alleged to have been paid, were carrying material contradictions. The learned Judge decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs. 9. The learned Judge decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs. 9. While dealing with issue No. 2, the learned Judge observed that although in view of findings on issue No. 1, this issue was not required to be decided but there was one additional factor that according to the alleged agreement, the amount was to be paid within a month so as to bind the vendor to execute the document but notice itself has been served only on 17.9.1984 and there was no other evidence of any attempt on any earlier occasion to make payment except bald statement of PW1 Ramchandra. The learned Judge did not decide issue No. 3 also in consequence of decision of issue No. 1. No entitlement to special cost was established and accordingly, learned Judge found that suit was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, by the decree dated 5.8.1989, the learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1989. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that learned trial court erred in deciding issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs by relying upon the minor contradictions in the statements of attesting witnesses. which are, according to the learned counsel, quite natural and normal and show the veracity of their statements. The learned counsel submitted that so far the thumb impression of Bhagwan Kaur on the agreement is concerned, the fact was clearly established on record and the fact that the agreement was entered into by Bhagwan Kaur is specifically established in the testimony of defendant - Suchcha Singh himself. The learned counsel referred to the statement of Ramchandra and other witnesses and submitted that execution of agreement by Bhagwan Kaur was clearly established on record and that the stand of defendants shows that there was no misrepresentation or undue influence upon Bhagwan Kaur and she willingly put her thumb impressions on the agreement after having entered into the transaction. The learned counsel further submitted that non-appearance of Deegram in witness box was entirely irrelevant inasmuch as the agreement and the terms thereof were established on record and multiplying of witnesses was not necessary. The learned counsel further submitted that non-appearance of Deegram in witness box was entirely irrelevant inasmuch as the agreement and the terms thereof were established on record and multiplying of witnesses was not necessary. The learned counsel also referred to the statement of PW1 to the effect that on number of occasions, the amount was offered to the vendor and submitted that mere delay in serving the notice would be of no avail to the defendants so as to deprive the plaintiffs of their right under the agreement. The learned counsel submitted that the approach of learned trial court has been perverse and material on record was not considered in correct perspective. 11. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 12. Submissions of the reamed counsel for the appellants have been given thoughtful consideration and the entire record has been scanned. 13. After giving an anxious consideration to the entire subject matter, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial court and present appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It shall be appropriate to consist, he questions involved in this appeal on the basis of the issues framed by the learned trial court.Issue No. 1:The fundamental question involved in this case relates to the existence, validity and enforceability of the agreement Ex.1. Although, the defendants have come out with a flat denial of Bhagwan Kaur having entered into any agreement at all, but at the same time, have specifically alleged that if Jangir Singh son of Bhagwan Kaur has got manipulated any document, the defendants were not bound by the same and Bhagwan Kaur has not entered into any transaction for selling of the land in question to the plaintiffs. On examination of the entire evidence of the parties and particularly the admission of defendant-Suchcha Singh himself, it is established beyond doubt on record that the agreement Ex.1 does bear the thumb impressions of Bhagwan Kaur However. it does not lead to any -conclusion but the surrounding circumstances throw enough doubt about the existence of any transaction which this document purports to spell. it does not lead to any -conclusion but the surrounding circumstances throw enough doubt about the existence of any transaction which this document purports to spell. The testimony of Iqbal Singh-PW5 strikes at the root of the case Iqbal Singh has been produced by the plaintiffs and is one of the witnesses to the agreement (Ex.1).Iqbal Singh has stated to the effect that he had seen the disputed and measuring 1 bigha and 11 biswas. 4 Biswas was in possession of Babulal who has constructed a pakka house and the remaining land was in possession of Jangir Singh, Suchcha Singh, Santok Singh and himself. He knew Ramchandra Kanoongo. The transaction was entered into with Bhagwan Kaur for selling of the land and he was present at that time along with Jangir Singh and Santok Singh. She put thumb impression on the agreement in his presence and his attestation is marked at mark O to P at Ex.1. They were agreeable to this sale. The consideration was Rs.38.000/-. But thereafter, he has stated that in his presence, the amount was not given. 4-5 days earlier also, a land was sold. The possession was not handed over and they have continued to be in their possession. The amount was not paid, therefore, the possession was not handed over. In his cross-examination. he has shown his ignorance as to when and from where stamp was purchased. Neither the agreement was scribed before him nor he knew as to where the same was written. The thumb impression of Bhagwan Kaur was obtained at the residence of Janina Kaur. This witness Iqbal Singh PW5 categorically deposed on essential material particulars squarely contrary to the stand of the plaintiffs and it comes out from his testimony that neither the amount of Rs. 14,000/- was paid nor possession was delivered to the plaintiffs. The entire edifice of the case of the plaintiffs falls to the ground with the testimony of PW5 alone. 14. The plaintiffs have also produced Santok Singh as PW6, the other son of Bhagwan Kaur. He has also stated ignorance about the transaction in question and has categorically stated in the cross-examination that the land in question was in possession of Suchcha Singh and was never in possession of the plaintiffs. He purchased the stamps for the sale document in favour of Suchcha Singh. He has also stated ignorance about the transaction in question and has categorically stated in the cross-examination that the land in question was in possession of Suchcha Singh and was never in possession of the plaintiffs. He purchased the stamps for the sale document in favour of Suchcha Singh. Apart from the contradictions about the place where the payment was made as seen in the contradictory statements of Girwar PW2 and Puran Singh PWS, testimony of these witnesses Iqbal Singh and Santok Singh demolishes the case of the plaintiffs altogether. 15. It appears that the document Ex.1 does not represent the true transaction which it purports to depict. There are other strong reasons also to discredit the value of the agreement (Ex.1). It is significant to notice that the same vendor Bhagwan Kaur has sold another of her adjoining land comparised in Khasra No. 375 measuring 1 bigha 17 biswas for Rs. 25,000/- to Rambabu Sharma 1/37th part and Hem Kumar sto Harphool Singh Choudhary, Dhan Kaur w/o Gulabsingh Choudhary, Rajendra Singh S/O Ramchandra Choudhary, Deegram s/o Gheesa Ram Choudhary, Bhupendra Singh s/o Chandrabhan Choudhary and Shanti w/o Mangat Ram Choudhary, 36/37th part. This sale deed has been executed on 26.7.1984 and registered on 27.7.1984 and it has been stated in this sale deed itself that Khasra No. 374 was adjoining this land, in which a 20ft. wide way was also left. This document was executed on 27.7.1984 and on this very day stamps for the disputed agreement (Ex.1) had been purchased and Ex.1 bears the thumb impression of Bhagwan Kaur even for purchasing the stamps. However, the document Ex.1 has been alleged to have been scribed on 29.7.1984. There appears to be no reason for Bhagwan kaur purchasing these stamps on 27.7.1984 only. Moreover, the document Ex.1 is conspicuously silent about the sale deed Ex.6 nor it even refers to the significant fact that adjoining land of Arazi No. 375 has been sold off to either the direct relatives of the present vendees or two of the present vendees themselves nor it spells any reason for the parties adopting such procedure of getting one document registered and entering into the agreement for the other adjoining land. These doubts could have been cleared and true nature of transaction could have been explained by at least two persons Deegram and Shanti Devi who are common to both the documents Ex.6 and Ex.1. Both of them have chosen not to enter into the witness box. Even if it be assumed that on behalf of Shanti Devi, her husband entered into the transaction, it has been the specific case of the plaintiffs that Deegram was a personal party to the transaction. Non-appearance of Deegram in witness-box clearly operates against the plaintiffs and an adverse inference is required to be drawn against them for his not entering into the witness box. The case of the plaintiffs about the existence of the transaction as purported to be shown by Ex.1 falls to the ground, and therefore, this Court is clearly of the opinion that learned trial court has not committed any error in deciding issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs. The submissions by the learned counsel for the appellants that minor discrepancies about the place of making payment deserve to be ignored and that Bhagwan Kaur having entered into the transaction is established by the testimony of Suchcha Singh DW1 himself cannot be countenanced. Firstly, the contradiction in the testimony of PW2 Girwar and PW8 Puran Singh is not of minor character and they have contradicted each other on the material particulars as to how and where the payment was made. Secondly, as pointed out above, the plaintiff's own witness Iqbal Singh has demolished their entire case of making of payment as well as of delivery of possession. The plaintiff's other witness Santok Singh has also deposed against the plaintiffs asserting the possession to be continuing with Suchcha Singh and stating ignorance about the transaction. The non-appearance of Deegram is not irrelevant as submitted by the learned counsel because of the questions arising in this case for which he was relevant and material witness. The testimony of Suchcha Singh also leads to the conclusion that the document Ex.1 does not truly represent the transaction nor the amount of Rs.14,000/- was paid as alleged by the plaintiffs. The approach of the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse. The testimony of Suchcha Singh also leads to the conclusion that the document Ex.1 does not truly represent the transaction nor the amount of Rs.14,000/- was paid as alleged by the plaintiffs. The approach of the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse. The finding on issue No. 1 is affirmed.Issue No. 2:Although with the finding on issue No. 1, the suit deserves to fail, yet however while examining the questions involved in issue No. 2 about readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the agreement so as to be entitled for a decree for specific performance. this Court has examined the record of the case with the assumption that the agreement Ex.1 existed. In view of the transaction already entered into between the parties and in view of specific time stated in the agreement, it was required to be shown by the plaintiffs of their acts in furtherance of the agreement within the time limit of one month as stated in the agreement. It is found that no plaintiff has appeared in the witness-box and only Ramchandra has made an oral assertion of visiting Bhagwan Kaur very many times with the amount. However, there is no corroboration to these bald assertions. On the contrary, these assertions stand contradicted by the very notice Ex.2 sent and relied upon by the plaintiffs. The notice was sent on 17.9.1984 i.e. nearly 20 days after the expiry of one month from the date of agreement (Ex.1). It has been specifically stated in the notice that the plaintiffs were to make payment of the remaining Rs.24,000/- which now they were ready to pay. It has been stated in the notice thus:- " vkSj cdk;k jde 24]000@& :i;s esjs eqOofdyku dks vnk djus Fks os vc vkidks 24]000@& :i;s vnk djus dks rS;kj gSa vkSj [kpkZ jftLV~h ogu djds vius gd esa jftLV~h c) djkus dks rS;kj gSaA " 16. This notice is conspicuously silent about any previous attempt ever made by any of the plaintiffs. The terms of Ex.1 are imperative that the vendees were bound to make payment and get the document registered within a month. The very first offer to make the payment has come by way of the notice (Ex.2) in which no previous offer is stated and on the contrary, it is specifically stated that "now" the plaintiffs were ready to make payment. 17. The very first offer to make the payment has come by way of the notice (Ex.2) in which no previous offer is stated and on the contrary, it is specifically stated that "now" the plaintiffs were ready to make payment. 17. in the aforesaid view of the matter, the irresistible conclusion is that even if the Ex.1 be taken to have been executed and represents a transaction entered into between the parties, the plaintiffs have failed to carry out their part within the stipulated time and the claim for specific performance fails on this count alone. Issue No. 2 is specifically decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 3:So far the sale deed in favour of Suchcha Singh dated 11.9.1984 is concerned (Ex.1 = Ex.A/1), when the plaintiffs have been found to be not entitled for specific performance and having no right to the land in question, this question regarding the sale deed in favour of Suchcha Singh becomes redundant as the plaintiffs are not entitled to question the same in relation to any of their rights. It is of course an entirely different matter that this sale deed gives rise to very many different questions about the genuineness of such alleged sale but those are squarely the matters amongst the heirs of Bhagwan Kaur and not of the concern of the plaintiffs. In view of the findings on Issue No. 1 and 2, this issue becomes redundant.Issue No. 4:In view of over all conduct of the parties, no case for grant of any costs or special costs arise. The same has rightly been refused by the learned trial court.As a result of the aforesaid, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. The appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******