After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the instant appeals are misconceived. The evidence on record shows that Ram Narain, pursuant to the agreement to sell, was put in possession of the suit property by Jaggu Singh, who had received the entire sale consideration. The transaction, therefore, comes in the ambit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 as the contract between Ram Narain and Jaggu Singh was partially enforced. It has also come in evidence that there was a clause in the agreement that the sale deed would be executed only after the entries in the revenue record were changed. There is no evidence to show that the agreement was fabricated except for the mere denial that the agreement was non-existent. Suraj Bhan & others have not been able to show that the agreement was the result of fraud or misrepresentation. The fact that Ram Narain had been put in possession also leads to the suggestion that the entire sale consideration had been received by the vendor, i.e., Jaggu Singh. Besides, Jaggu Singh remained alive till 1994, whereas the agreement to sell was executed in the year 1982 and all these years, he did not raise any objection to the possession of Ram Narain over the suit land, from where it can be inferred that he had executed a valid agreement to sell, the terms of
