to the property on the basis of adverse possession, the defendant was made to sign the agreement dated 10.3.1998 and was also made to write the note regarding receipt of 10,000/- as earnest money. He alleged that the said agreement was executed only as security to pressurize Gurdev Singh, father of the defendant, to withdraw the appeal. He has also alleged that the actual value of land is not less than 30 lacs. Since the defendant himself was not in possession, therefore, there was no question of delivery of possession or execution of agreement to sell. He has also alleged that the agreement had become unenforceable as his father Gurdev Singh has already withdrawn the appeal. It is also alleged that the conditions of the agreement/compromise dated 12.7.1996 has not been complied with, according to which both the parties were to pay 1,45,000/- as compensation of the land of Amarjit Kaur daughter of Gurdial Singh but the plaintiffs did not make the payment. He, thus, submitted that he purchased the land from Amarjit Kaur by paying the entire amount and that the compromise decree dated 1.5.1997 has no effect on his rights. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in which issue No.1 was _“whether defendant executed agreement dated 10.3.1998 and received_ 10,000/- as earnest money”? Both the Courts below, on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence came to a definite conclusion that agreement to sell was executed by defendant who received `10,000/- as earnest money. Once, the due execution of agreement was proved, the plaintiffs have been found to be ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, the learned trial Court
