Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1151 (RAJ)

Chitarmal Yadav v. Deepti Singh

2025-04-23

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. The present civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) under Section 96 C.P.C. 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan (HQ-Sanganer) (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 10/2013 titled as Chitarmal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Deepti Singh & Ors., whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and cancellation of decree against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit mentioning therein that land bearing khasra No. 76 (new khasra Nos. 209, 210, 221/2783) total admeasuring 6.11 hectare (24 bigha 4 biswa) situated in Village Bhankarota, Tehsil-Jaipur was recorded in the name of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the revenue record and they were owner of it. The plaintiffs purchased the said land from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998 and obtained the possession thereof, whereupon the plaintiffs raised construction and obtained electricity connection. Before executing the agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998, an agreement was also entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 12.03.1998 which was lateron cancelled and new agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998 was executed wherein it was agreed that the sale consideration would be Rs. 1,65,000/- per bigha. Resultantly under the earlier agreement were adjusted and the advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which were given the seller received an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- also at the time of subsequent agreement dated 07.10.1998 and balance amount of sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registry. It was also agreed in the agreement that the cases filed by defendant No. 3-Sohan Lal would be settled by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and on giving information in this regard by the defendants to the purchasers, registry would be done within 15 days thereafter, on remitting the balance amount of sale consideration. After execution of the said agreement dated 07.10.1998, the plaintiffs paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 02.11.1998 and Rs. 20,000/- on 13.12.1998. In this way, a total amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- was said to be paid by the plaintiffs to the seller (defendant Nos. After execution of the said agreement dated 07.10.1998, the plaintiffs paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 02.11.1998 and Rs. 20,000/- on 13.12.1998. In this way, a total amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- was said to be paid by the plaintiffs to the seller (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and they were said to be ready and willing to pay the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 29,73,000/- to get the registry done. Later on due to hike in land prices, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with malafide intention did not honor the agreement. So, the plaintiff sent the legal notice dated 18.09.2003. It was mentioned that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently obtained consent decree on 26.12.2008 in revenue suits, according to which khatedari rights of the disputed land were given to Laxmi Narayan son of Bhakti Lal (defendant No. 4). 3. It was also mentioned in the plaint that Mehant Haridas had executed the purported sale deed dated 31.01.1968 in favour of Bhakti Lal but the said sale deed was not executed and actual physical possession of the land was not handed over to Bhakti Lal. Pursuant to the order dated 17.05.1989 passed in case No. 513/88, the disputed land was entered in revenue record in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and they were in possession of the said land. Sale deed executed in favour of Bhakti Lal on 31.01.1968 was ineffective as against the plaintiffs. It was prayed that the consent decree dated 26.12.2008 passed in revenue suit which was obtained fraudulently on the basis of consent be also cancelled. 4. Defendant No. 3 filed the written statement and denied the contents of the plaint and mentioned that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no concerned with the disputed land. The disputed land was in the name of Mehant Haridas, which was purchased by defendant No. 3 through registered sale deed dated 31.01.1968 in the name of his brother Bhakti Lal. After that, mutation was opened in the name of the Bhakti Lal. Bhakti Lal gave statement in the Settlement Department and on the basis of said statement, the land was entered in the name of defendant No. 3 Sohan Lal. So, defendant No. 3 was the owner of the disputed land. Father of defendant Nos. After that, mutation was opened in the name of the Bhakti Lal. Bhakti Lal gave statement in the Settlement Department and on the basis of said statement, the land was entered in the name of defendant No. 3 Sohan Lal. So, defendant No. 3 was the owner of the disputed land. Father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 misused his power and on the basis of the order dated 17.05.1989 passed in case No. 513/88 got fraudulently entered the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in place of defendant No. 3, whereas said file was never in existence nor any competent authority had passed such an order. Onss the basis of fraudulent entry, no right accrued to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the disputed property. It was also mentioned that one Mohru had filed a suit against Mehant Haridas in which Bhakti Lal was also made a party who purchased the land in question. Revenue Court had attached the said land and when the said land is under attachment till date, no question arises for possession either of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 or plaintiffs over the land in question. Agreements dated 07.10.1998 and 12.03.1998 executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiffs were forged and they in collusion with defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 wanted to grab the defendant No. 3’s land. It was also mentioned that Laxmi Narayan son of the deceased Bhakti Lal (defendant No. 4) had gone in adoption of Netaram. So, Laxminarayan’s rights in the property were extinguished. 5. Defendant No. 4 had also filed written statement and denied the contentions of the plaintiffs. He submitted that his father Bhakti Lal had purchased the disputed land from Mehant Haridas vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.1968 and on the basis of mutation dated 10.12.1968, name of Bhakti Lal was entered in the revenue record. On death of Bakti Lal on 23.01.1995, mutation No. 115 was wrongly opened in favour of defendant No. 3 because he claimed himself as a successor of Bhakti Lal. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with Assistant Settlement Officer obtained an order dated 17.05.1989 and got opened the mutation in their name. On death of Bakti Lal on 23.01.1995, mutation No. 115 was wrongly opened in favour of defendant No. 3 because he claimed himself as a successor of Bhakti Lal. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with Assistant Settlement Officer obtained an order dated 17.05.1989 and got opened the mutation in their name. Defendant No. 4 filed a suit with regard to correction of the revenue entries and permanent injunction, which was decided in his favour on 26.12.2008 and on that basis mutation was opened in the name of defendant No. 4. Mohru also filed a suit against Mehant Haridas and Bhakti Lal in which receiver was appointed on 02.05.1969 by Collector and receiver had attached the disputed property on 09.05.1969. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 6. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not filed the written statements and not adduced any evidence. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, trial Court framed following issues:- 1. Whether agricultural land admeasuring 24 bigha 4 biswa situated in Village Bhakrota as described in para 1 of the plaint, having been recorded in the revenue record in the name of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was in their possession and ownership which was purchased by the plaintiffs earlier on 12.03.1998 and thereafter by new agreement dated 07.10.1998 @ 1,65,000/- per bigha and obtained possession thereof by paying Rs. 10,20,000/-? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to execute the sale deed by paying the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs. 29,73,000/- as per the terms of the agreement? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declare the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2008 passed in Case No. 16/2004 titled as Laxminarayan Vs. Dipti Singh and Ors. and the judgment and decree passed in case No. 621/96 as null and void as the same were obtained fraudulently by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant Nos. 3 and 4? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get execute the sale deed of the disputed agricultural land in his favour from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at his own expenses by paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 29,73,000/-. 5. Whether sale deed dated 13.02.1968 executed in favour of Bhaktilal was void, ab-initio against the plaintiffs? 6. 3 and 4? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get execute the sale deed of the disputed agricultural land in his favour from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at his own expenses by paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 29,73,000/-. 5. Whether sale deed dated 13.02.1968 executed in favour of Bhaktilal was void, ab-initio against the plaintiffs? 6. Whether plaintiffs are in possession of disputed land as a result of which they are entitled to get injunction against dispossession and use and occupation? 7. Whether defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have no right to raise objection in this matter? 8. Whether agreement dated 07.10.1998 is not admissible being contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act and Sections 35 and 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act? 9. Whether the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit? 10. Whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no ownership and they fraudulently got entered their names and agreement dated 07.10.1998 was forged? 11. Whether disputed land having been acquired, has been in the possession of receiver Tehsildar, Jaipur till date? 12. Whether defendant No. 3, plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not bound by the agreement dated07.10.1998? 13. Whether defendant No. 4 having been gone in adoption of Netaram, his rights in the property extinguished? 14. Whether by way of Will dated 18.01.1995, Bhakti Lal gave his all movable and immovable property to defendant No. 3? 15. Whether Late Ranveer Singh, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2 by misusing his power, fraudulently obtained the order dated 17.05.1989 in case No. 513/88 and got entered the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2? 16. Whether defendant No. 3 is entitled to get injunction against plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4? 17. What is the effect of the judgment dated 02.05.1969 passed by Assistant Collector, Jaipur in case No. 360/68 on this suit? 18. Whether by sale deed dated 31.01.1968 executed in favour of Bhakti Lal, defendant No. 4 obtained any right? 19. Whether suit is barred by limitation? 20. Whether defendant No. 4 is entitled to get possession from the plaintiffs? 21. Relief? 8. To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined Chittarmal Yadav as PW-1. To prove their case, defendant No. 3 got examined himself as DW-1 Sohan Lal. In rebuttal evidence, plaintiffs got examined Ramchandra Sharma as DAW-1. 9. 19. Whether suit is barred by limitation? 20. Whether defendant No. 4 is entitled to get possession from the plaintiffs? 21. Relief? 8. To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined Chittarmal Yadav as PW-1. To prove their case, defendant No. 3 got examined himself as DW-1 Sohan Lal. In rebuttal evidence, plaintiffs got examined Ramchandra Sharma as DAW-1. 9. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998 and cancellation of decree and permanent injunction and passed money decree against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in favour of plaintiffs holding them entitled to get partial amount of sale consideration of Rs. 10,20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, they were held entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 17,18,700/-, so deposited pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by this Court. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by the trial Court is bad in law as well as on fact because the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. 10. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial Court found the so-called agreement dated 07.10.1998 as genuine. He also submits that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not contested the case and had not filed their written statement. 11. Defendant No. 4 had not adduced any evidence during the trial. So, facts mentioned by the plaintiffs in their plaint were not rebutted by them. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in their favour. 12. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial Court had committed an error in considering the order dated 18.02.2010. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.04.2010 observed that the order of this Court is confined only for the purpose of the disposal of the interlocutory application and shall have no bearing on the merits of this case, but the trial Court had wrongly interpreted the agreement dated 07.10.1998 and gave contrary finding that the plaintiffs were only entitled to get partial amount of sale consideration given by them pursuant to the agreement, with interest 6% per annum. 13. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that plaintiffs had proved the so-called agreement dated 07.10.1998. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were declared khatedar as per order dated 17.05.1989 passed by Land Settlement Officer in case No. 513/88 which was marked as Ex.-2. Said order was never challenged by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Bhakti Lal himself deposed before the Land Settlement Officer that he had no objection if disputed land is mutated in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. So, Laxmi Narayan son of Bhakti Lal had no right to withdraw the consent given by Bhaktilal. 14. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was entered in the revenue record on account of adverse possession and in consonance with the provision contained in Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 15. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial Court had committed an error in observing that the transfer could only take place by way of an instrument described under Transfer of Property Act. He also submits that order dated 17.05.1989 is a public document, so, there is no reason to disbelieve it. 16. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial Court had committed an error in giving finding that plaintiffs had no possession over the disputed property. Possession of disputed property was handed over to them at the time of execution of agreement. 17. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that there is no contradiction in the agreements which are marked as Ex-3 & 4. On account of possession, plaintiffs got electricity connection in their name. They have also constructed room thereon. 18. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the trial Court had erred in not considering the order dated 02.05.1969 (Ex.31) which clearly shows that transfer of land in favour of Bhakti Lal from Mehant Haridas was prima facie illegal. Mehant Haridas had not handed over the possession of the said property to Bhakti Lal. 19. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the order dated 26.12.2008 was obtained on the basis of collusion between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and trial Court had wrongly relied on it and gave finding against the plaintiffs. 20. Learned Sr. 19. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the order dated 26.12.2008 was obtained on the basis of collusion between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and trial Court had wrongly relied on it and gave finding against the plaintiffs. 20. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the trial Court had not interpreted the order dated 26.12.2008 in right perspective because at that time Laxmi Narayan was not in possession of the disputed property because Mehant Haridas and Bhaktilal had extinguished their rights on account of consent given by them in the order dated 17.05.1989 and the said order was not challenged in the proceedings of the order dated 26.12.2008. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial Court had committed an error in striking off the issues Nos. 17, 18 and 20. These issues were necessary for the adjudication of the present suit. 21. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that finding of the trial Court is not as per law and decree passed by revenue Court could not be set aside by the Civil Court. 22. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that as per Section 9 read with Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC, if a compromise decree was obtained by fraud, that can be challenged. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be allowed and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs after receiving the balance amount of sale consideration. 23. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Iqbal Basith and others vs. N. Subbalakshmi and others in Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 2010 decided on December 14, 2020. 2. Vidhyadhar vs. Mankikrao and another in Civil Appeal No. 1534 of 1999 and Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 25143 of 1996 decided on 17.03.1999 3. Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and others in Civil Appeal No. 970 of 1968 decided on September 5, 1968 4. Amro Devi and others vs. Julfi Ram (Deceased) through Lrs. & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 14690 of 2015 decided on 15.07.2024 24. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned Sr. Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and others in Civil Appeal No. 970 of 1968 decided on September 5, 1968 4. Amro Devi and others vs. Julfi Ram (Deceased) through Lrs. & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 14690 of 2015 decided on 15.07.2024 24. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs and submits that the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and rightly ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to get partial amount of sale consideration given by them with interest @6%. 25. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the suit of the plaintiffs was based on so-called mutation entry dated 17.05.1989 and agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998 executed between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 26. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that so-called mutation entry dated 17.05.1989 was forged one because no file with regard to said entries was traceable and concerned revenue officials had clearly stated that the signature on said order was forged one. They had not put the signatures on it. 27. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no ownership of disputed land because mutation order dated 17.05.1989 was set aside in revenue proceeding by order dated 26.12.2008. So, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no right to execute the agreement dated 07.10.1998. Disputed land originally belonged to the Mehant Haridas and Mehant Haridas had sold the said land by registered sale deed to Bhakti Lal father of Laxminarayan (defendant No. 4) and handed over the possession. After that, Mehru had filed a suit with regard to disputed land against Mehant Haridas in which land was declared in the ownership of the Bhaktilal and attachment order was passed. Since then, the disputed land attached by the concerned revenue authorities, has not been released from attachment till today. So, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no right to execute the agreement to sell and to give possession to the plaintiffs. 28. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that trial Court rightly gave the finding that plaintiffs had no possession because as per the previous agreement dated 12.03.1998 which is marked as Ex-3, possession was not handed over. After that, subsequent agreement was executed on 07.10.1998 and previous agreement dated 12.03.1998 was cancelled. 28. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that trial Court rightly gave the finding that plaintiffs had no possession because as per the previous agreement dated 12.03.1998 which is marked as Ex-3, possession was not handed over. After that, subsequent agreement was executed on 07.10.1998 and previous agreement dated 12.03.1998 was cancelled. There are contradictions between these agreements with regard to possession. Disputed land was in possession of the receiver. So, possession could not be handed over. 29. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that in the present suit plaintiffs had filed temporary injunction application before the trial Court and the trial Court dismissed the temporary injunction application. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the trial Court, plaintiffs preferred an appeal before this Court and this Court vide order dated 18.02.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and ordered that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the partial consideration amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- given by them with interest @ 6% and direction was also issued to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit the same. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had deposited the said amount. 30. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs preferred SLP against the said order dated 18.02.2010. Hon’ble Apex Court has directed that the findings given by this Court would have no bearing on the merits of the case and were confined only for the purpose of disposal of interlocutory application. 31. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs relied on the so-called agreement dated 07.10.1998 which was marked as Ex.-4. A perusal of the said agreement reveals that it was mentioned therein that in case revenue suits filed by the defendant No. 3 were decided against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, then plaintiffs would be entitled to get the consideration amount given by them with interest. So, the trial Court rightly observed that right of the plaintiffs are to get partial consideration amount given by them in advance. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 32. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed the reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Chitar Mal Yadav Vs. Smt. Deepti Singh in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5120/2009 decided on 18.02.2010 2. M/s Eureka Builders & Ors. Vs. Gulabchand S/o Veljee Dand since deceased by Lrs and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 4757-4760/2018 decided on 03.05.2018 3. 32. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed the reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Chitar Mal Yadav Vs. Smt. Deepti Singh in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5120/2009 decided on 18.02.2010 2. M/s Eureka Builders & Ors. Vs. Gulabchand S/o Veljee Dand since deceased by Lrs and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 4757-4760/2018 decided on 03.05.2018 3. Prahlad Pradhan and Ors. Vs. Sonu Kumhar and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5919/2011 decided on 16.10.2019 I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 33. Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by the trial Court by which the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract with regard to disputed land. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had executed the purported agreement to sell with regard to disputed land. By the order dated 17.05.1989, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were declared khaterdar. While dealing with the said order, the trial Court clearly mentioned that there was no transfer deed executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Said order was forged one because revenue personnel category stated before the concerned authorities that they had not signed the said order and no record of it was found. Said order was also set aside in revenue proceedings by order dated 26.12.2008. Originally disputed land belonged to Mehant Haridas, who had sold the disputed land by registered sale deed dated 31.01.1968 to Bhakti Lal, who is father of defendant No. 4. Mehru had filed suit with regard to disputed land against Mehant Haridas in which Bhaktilal was also party. Revenue authorities found the title of the Mehant Haridas regarding disputed land and ordered to attach the disputed land and said attachment is continued till today. Plaintiffs in their cross- examination gave very evasive reply that they did not know as to whether registry was executed in favour of Deepti Singh and Rajveer Singh or not. They further admitted that presently the revenue record of the land in question was in the name of Laxminarayan. On 12.03.1998 agreement to sell Ex.-3 was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in said agreement it was clearly mentioned that no possession was handed over at that time. They further admitted that presently the revenue record of the land in question was in the name of Laxminarayan. On 12.03.1998 agreement to sell Ex.-3 was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in said agreement it was clearly mentioned that no possession was handed over at that time. After that, on 07.10.1998 previous agreement dated 12.03.1998 was cancelled and fresh agreement was executed which was marked as Ex.-4. In the said agreement it was clearly mentioned that defendant No. 3-Sohan Lal had filed several revenue suits, and the duty was casted on defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to get the dispute resolved by adjudication of these suits. It was also mentioned that if these suits were not decided in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, then plaintiffs were entitled to get the advance amount of sale consideration given by them with interest @ 6%. So, in my considered opinion, plaintiffs are bound by the condition lay down in the so-called agreement dated 07.10.1998 (Ex.-4). Although, Hon’ble Apex Court in its order mentioned that the observations of this Court would have no bearing on the merits of the case but agreement dated 07.10.1998 is the basis of suit and both the parties are bound by condition lay down in the said agreement. So, the trial Court rightly ordered for returning of the money given by the plaintiffs as an advance. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 34. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.