sell P1 to P3, for the years 1977-78. The agreements to sell, could not confer any right of ownership, on the plaintiff/appellant. No suit, was filed, by the plaintiff/appellant, to enforce the agreements, by seeking specific performance thereof. No doubt, in the agreements to sell, it was recorded, that the plaintiff/appellant, was put in possession of the property, in dispute. However, in case, the plaintiff/appellant, was in possession of the property, in dispute, the same would have certainly been reflected, in the revenue record. No revenue record, was produced by the plaintiff/appellant, to show, that he came into possession of the property, in dispute, on the basis of the agreements to sell, referred to above. Not only this, even sale deeds D1 and D2, were executed, in respect of the property, in dispute, by the original owner in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and he became the owner in possession thereof, and after his death the respondents became the owners in possession. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that the plaintiff/appellant, did come into possession of the property, in dispute, on the basis of the agreements to sell, referred to above; that he never filed a suit for specific performance, on the basis thereof, though the same related to the year 197778; that the agreements to sell P1 to P3, after such a long time, had become unenforceable at law; that the sale deeds D1 and D2, in respect of the property, in dispute, were executed in favour of Inder Singh, predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, who became owner in possession of the same and after his death the respondents became the owners in possession; and that the plaintiff/appellant, was not entitled to the injunction prayed for, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, are neither illegal, nor perverse and warrant no interference, by this Court.
