RSA No.3831 of 2010 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3831 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:15.10.2010. Bhale Ram and others …Appellants Versus Duli Chand and others … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is filed by plaintiff Nos.3 to 5 against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which their suit for possession by way of specific performance has been dismissed. In brief, the case set up by the plaintiffs is that defendant No.1, as power of attorney of defendant Nos.2 to 8, entered into an agreement dated 17.09.1982 (Ex.P1) with the plaintiffs to sell the land measuring 37 Kanals12 Marlas @ of Rs.5,000/- per acre against a total sale consideration of Rs.23,500/-. A sale deed No.1694 dated 02.12.1982 (Ex.P3) was executed in favour of the plaintiffs as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiffs have claimed that it was also provided in the agreement that in case some other land is found in the name of the defendants in the revenue estate of village Kakand Bhadri, it would also be sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs @ Rs.5,000/- per acre. It is alleged that the plaintiffs came to know on 05.12.2002 that the defendants are recorded as owners in possession of the land measuring 09 Kanals 01 Marla, being 5/6th share of the land mentioned in the plaint and as per agreement dated 17.09.1982 (Ex.P1) the said land was to be sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.5,700/-, but the defendants refused to execute the sale deed, therefore, the suit for specific performance was filed by them. - 1- RSA No.3831 of 2010 (O&M) ****** In defence, agreement to sell (Ex.P1) and the sale deed dated 02.12.1982 were not denied. It was also alleged that the defendants have sold the land which was mentioned in the agreement to sell specifically after adjusting the earnest money of Rs.12,000/- in the sale deed. It is further alleged that no earnest money was there with the defendants as the agreement was no more in existence. The plaintiffs are claiming to purchase the property which has fallen to the ownership of the defendants in the year 2002 on the basis of agreement of the year 1982 and the price prevailing at that time. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the terms and conditions, which are sought to be performed by the plaintiffs, were totally vague and an uncertain agreement cannot be executed. It was also held that the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) is of 1982, whereas the suit for specific performance has been filed in 2003, after a period of 21 years, at the price of the year 1982, though the price of real estate has gone sky high during this period. The learned First Appellate Court has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Baj Singh and others Vs. Smt. Gejo and another, 1989(1) Latest Judicial Reports 598 in which it was held that the agreement was executed 14 years back and it would be unjust and inequitable to allow specific performance of such an agreement because the prices have increased manifolds. The only submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that the defendants cannot retract from the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, but he has miserably failed to find fault with the findings of the Courts below wherein it has been held that an uncertain agreement cannot be performed specially when there is no earnest money paid against that land which has now come to the ownership of the defendants. In view thereof, in my opinion, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is highly inequitable and without any sanction of law and hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, with costs throughout. October 15, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) vinod* JUDGE - 2-