R.S.A.No.1808 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1808 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.4.2009 Bhalle Ram ....Appellant Versus Nazar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay of 37 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 21.5.2008 and that of the first appellate Court dated 11.10.2008. A suit for specific performance was filed by the appellant seeking to enforce the agreement to sell dated 4.8.2004 and it was pleaded that at the time of execution of the agreement the possession of the suit land was handed over to him. The total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.6,20,000/-, which was paid. Pursuant thereto the respondent had relinquished his right in the suit land. Since the sale deed was not executed, notice was issued on 15.7.2005 requesting R.S.A.No.1808 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the respondent to execute the sale deed. The suit was filed after the respondent failed to perform his part of the agreement. The respondent contested the suit and denied the agreement to sell. He pleaded that it was a result of fraud and his thumb impressions were obtained in the office of the Land Mortgage Bank which were used to create the document in question. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance of contract as prayed for on the ground as averred in the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 6. Relief. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the appellant granting him the relief of recovery of Rs.6,20,000/- from the respondent by holding that the agreement was incapable of being executed for the reason that the respondent did not have the ownership rights of the suit property as the land was recorded as Shamlat Deh. R.S.A.No.1808 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below, the appellant is in regular second appeal and it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the land is not Shamlat Deh as it is subject to river action. He relied upon Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to state this point. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appeal is without any merit. Whether the land is Shamlat Deh or not for the reason that it is subject to river action is a matter to be decided by the revenue authorities constituted under the Act, who have the power to do so. Till the time the status of the land is not determined, the agreement to sell, even if validly executed in favour of the appellant, is incapable of being executed, as the respondent cannot be held to be the owner of the suit property so as to be enabled to alienate it. The appeal is, therefore, without any merit and is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to invoke the provisions of the Act to get the status of the land determined. That apart, the appeal is barred by a delay of 32 days which has not been explained satisfactorily. 30.4.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss