The Union Government is not a necessary party to a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of agricultural land allotted by the Custodian Department.

1. - This civil first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated 19-9-1973 in a suit for specific performance of the contract.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are these.

3. The defendant-appellant, was allotted agricultural lands situate in Chak 1 SEN and Chak 3 SEN, village Sabuana by the, Custodian Department. Particulars of the agricultural lands are fully mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint On 29-1-1968 the defendant agreed to sell the entire agricultural lands to the plaintiff-respondent Sunder Singh for a sub or Rs. 17,000/- and executed an agreement in this respect on the earns day. The defendant also handed ever possession of the entire lands to the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was paid by the plaintiff towards the sale price on the date of the agreement. For the payment of the remaining sale price it wag agreed between the parties that the defendant would obtain 'Sanad' of the of the lands in dispute form the Government on or before 30.6.1968 and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 9,000/-. It was further agreed that in case the defendant committed default in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 30.6.68, he would return the earned money of Rs. 8,000/- and also pay an additional sum of Rs. 8,000/- and damages to the plaintiff the defendant did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated time as he could not obtain the required 'Sanad' from the Government. The parties therefore, on 24-6-68 extended the lime fir performance of the contract upto 26.8.68 and an endorsement to the effect was made on the back of the agreement dated 29.1.68 The defendant again failed to execute the sale deed by 26.8.68 because the price of the agricultural land had gone very high in the meantime, The plaintiff therefore, brought the present suit for specific performance of the contract of sale and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- paid to the defendant as earnest money plus Rs. 8,000/- as damages, total Rs. 18,000/-. The plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that he was ready & willing to perform his part of the contract but it was the defend on who avoided the performance of the contract on account of lining of prices of the agricultural lands.

4. The defendant resisted the suit. He admitted execution of the agreement on 29-1-68. He further admitted to have received Rs. 8,000/- as earnest money. He also admitted that under the agreement he was required to execute the sale deed on or before 30-6-68. He also admitted that on 24-6-68 he extended the time of performance we pleaded by the plaintiff. He, however, denied that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the plaintiff on 29-1-68. He pleaded that the contract for sale was by mutual corset. It was forth replaced that he was a mere allottee of the fields, and therefore, he was not in a position to sell that land hill he obtained the 'Sanad' from the Government. He further pleaded that a Panchayat was summoned on 23-6-68 and it was settled before in the patties that the defendant would return the amount of earnest money to the plaintiff within two months' and the agreement would stand rescinded or cancelled. The defendant also pleaded that in accordance with this agreement between the parties be returned the amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 8000/- to the plaintiff through Endeen and Ali Mohammed and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to claim performance of the contract It was also related that the Junior Government was a necessary party in absence of which the suit was not maintainable.

5. On the Headings of the parties the following issues were framed.

"1. Whether the defendant did not deliver possession of the fields described in para 2 of the plaint to the plaintiff in part performance of the agreement pleaded in para 2 of the plaint?

2. Whether on 23-6-68 the parties and the