Judgment

SHINGHAL, J.:- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the summary dismissal of defendant Piarey Lals second appeal on August 13, 1975. As the leave has been limited to the question of interpretation of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), "for the purpose of deciding whether the liability of the petitioner to specifically perform the contract of sale of the old holding was transferred to the new chak allotted to him on consolidation," it will be enough to state the facts which bear on it.

2. Respondent Hori Lal raised the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated March 6, 1966, for the sale of six plots of land measuring nine bighas and six biswas in village Hathiawali, Tehsil Gannaur. It was alleged in the plaint that Rs. 3000/- were paid by the plaintiff Hori Lal in advance, and the balance of Rs. 2000/- was to be paid at the time of the execution of sale deed, within one year of the agreement. It was also pleaded that as defendant Piarey Lal refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was driven to the necessity of filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and, in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 3000/- which had been paid as advance. Defendant Piarey Lal denied the execution of the agreement for sale and the receipt of Rs. 3000/-, and pleaded that as new plots had been allotted as a result of the consolidation of his holding under the Act, he could not perform the agreement for sale. The trial Court framed issues, inter alia, on questions relating to the execution of the agreement for sale, payment of Rs. 3000/- to the defendant, and the inability of the defendant to perform the contract. That court held that the plaintiff had proved the agreement for sale and the payment of Rs. 3000/-. It also held that the agreement for sale could be "enforced for plots allotted to the defendant in lieu of plot mentioned in the agreement in consolidation." It therefore decreed the suit for specific performance by its judgment dated August 23, 1973. The Second Additional District Judge, Badaun, upheld the decree, and as the High Court has dismissed the second appeal as aforesaid, defendant Piarey Lal has come to this Court for a redress of his grievance by special leave.

3. As has been stated, the limited question for consideration in this Court is whether the defendant was liable to specifically perform the contract for sale of his old holding even after its consolidation and the allotment of a chak? It appears that there was controversy in the Allahabad High Court on the question whether an agreement for sale, in the circumstances of a case like this, was rendered void under Sec. 56 of the Contract Act because of the order of consolidation allotting new plots for the earlier plots in respect of which the agreement for sale had been executed. A single Judge of that Court took the view in Sugna v. Kali Ram, 1966 All LJ 1004 that the agreement became void and impossible of performance, and was not saved by Section 30 of the Act. A different view was however taken by another single Judge in Chetan Singh v. Hira Singh, 1969 All LJ 189. The matter was referred to a Division Bench in Shanti Prasad v. Akhtar, 1972 All LJ 549. One of the Judges in the Division Bench was the Judge who had given the decision in Chetan Singhs case. The Bench held that the duty of the seller to execute the conveyance of the property agreed to be sold was a liability recognised by law and was enforceable as the liability "relates to the land mentioned in the agreement" and was "transferred to the new chak" under Section 30 (b) of the Act. The decision in Shanti Prasads case formed the basis of the decision of the first appellate court in this case, and that appears to be the reason why the High Court has dismissed the second appeal summarily. The controversy therefore turns on the proper interpretation of Section 30 of