R.S.A.No. 3697 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3697 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 23.3.2011 Satnam Singh ......Appellant Versus Shajwara Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.5.1986. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the land measuring 69 kanals 11 marlas had been allotted to the defendant by the State on the basis of his possession. The defendant had approached the plaintiff to pay the instalments qua the said land as there was a dispute regarding the transfer of the said land. The defendant had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff regarding 34 kanals 15 marlas of land. The plaintiff had paid ` 10,000/- to the defendant towards total sale consideration and it was R.S.A.No. 3697 of 2010(O&M) 2 agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall bear the expenses qua the transfer of the proprietary rights and shall proceed for confirmation of the proprietary rights regarding the suit land. The plaintiff had been paying all the instalments to the Government for getting the confirmation of proprietary rights. The plaintiff had also incurred all the expenses necessary for confirmation of proprietary rights and was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant had, however, failed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant in his written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a forged and a fabricated document. Market value of the suit property in the year 1986 was about ` 2,00,000/- per acre and at present it was about ` 4,00,000/- per acre and hence, there was no occasion for the defendant to have sold the land for ` 20,000/-. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant has executed an agreement dated 3.5.1986 in favour of plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the said agreement to sell ? OPP 3. Whether the said agreement is a result of fraud and mis-representation ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 6. Relief.” R.S.A.No. 3697 of 2010(O&M) 3 The Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004 holding that the terms and conditions of the agreement were vague and the plaintiff had not been able to prove that he had complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell in dispute were vague and uncertain. It has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in its judgment that as per notice Ex.P-1, the plaintiff had conveyed to the defendant that he had received the entire sale consideration of ` 10,000/-, whereas, in the agreement to sell Ex.P-3, it had been mentioned that ` 10,000/- had been paid towards earnest money and the balance amount was to be spent by the plaintiff. The total sale consideration was not mentioned in the agreement to sell. In these circumstances, it was held that the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell in question were vague. The plaintiff was also required to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff, however, failed to establish that he had spent any amount to secure all proprietary rights in favour of the R.S.A.No. 3697 of 2010(O&M) 4 defendant. The plaintiff also could not tell as to when the proprietary rights were conferred on the defendant. The plaintiff was, thus, not aware till 3.2.1998 that the proprietary rights had been conferred on the defendant by virtue of order dated 21.4.1989. Conveyance deed had been executed in favour of the defendant in the year 1994. This shows that the plaintiff had not taken any interest qua the proceedings vide which the proprietary rights were to be conferred on the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff was also rightly held to be barred by limitation as the proprietary rights had been conferred on the defendant vide order dated 21.4.1989 and conveyance deed was executed in favour of the defendant on 4.7.1994, whereas, the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1999. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 23, 2011 anita