V.K.Shali, J. - (1.)THIS is a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant. This appeal is pending for the last more than eight years at the admission stage itself. Till date, no efforts have been made by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that any substantial question of law is arising from the appeal.
(2.)I have heard the leaned counsel for the appellants and have gone though the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that number of substantial questions of law are arising from the present appeal and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be heard with regard to these questions. Before dealing with the so called substantial questions of law allegedly arising from the present appeal, it would be relevant to give brief background of the case.
The respondent herein, Mahesh Kumar Mandal (plaintiff in the original suit), filed a suit for specific performance, possession and mesne profits against Ram Darash Mahto (appellant No. 1 herein) and his wife Bindrawati (since deceased and represented by her LRs being appellant Nos. 2 to 6 herein). The averments made in the suit were that the appellants -defendants, who were husband and wife, represented themselves to be the owners of the property No. 368, Lal Kuan near petrol pump, Badarpur, New Delhi consisting of three rooms and one bathroom besides open space/passage on the ground floor and one room with open space on the first floor along with land underneath measuring about 70 square yards. It was alleged that the appellants -defendants had agreed to sell the said property to the respondent -plaintiff on 13.3.1990 for a total sum of Rs. 51,000/ -. Two documents were purported to have been executed; one on 13.3.1990 and the other on 31.3.1990. It was alleged that the appellants -defendants had received the entire amount of Rs. 51,000/ - vide two transactions; one was for an amount of Rs. 23,600/ - which was paid by the plaintiff/respondent through appellants/defendants to one Kalka Prasad on 13.3.1990, who was the mortgagee in respect of the three rooms of the suit property while as the balance amount of Rs. 27,400/ - was paid to the appellants -defendants in cash on 31.3.1990. When the amount of Rs. 23,600/ - was given to Kalka Prasad, he is stated to have handed over the possession of two rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor to the plaintiff -respondent, who claimed that he had put his own locks on the said premises. Later on, it was alleged that these locks were broken and the appellants -defendants had taken the possession of these three rooms also and instead of perfecting the title of the respondent -plaintiff, they refused to honour the transaction. This resulted in filing of a suit for specific performance of the agreement as well as the oral agreement between the parties in respect of the suit property and possession of the property and thirdly, the damages/mesne profits, which were claimed @ Rs. 500/ - per month.

(3.)THE appellants -defendants contested the suit by denying that they had ever received any payment either directly or through Kalka Prasad. They also denied the execution of the two documents dated 13.3.1990 and 31.3.1990 either by themselves or by Kalka Prasad. They also denied any oral agreement purported to have been arrived at with the respondent -plaintiff for the sale of the property.