JUDGMENT :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2018 passed in Civil First Appeal No. 56/2016 by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 3, Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 69/93 (405/91) by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Ajmer whereby and whereunder appellant-plaintiff’s suit for specific performance was dismissed on merits.

2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the record.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that appellant-plaintiff claims to have an agreement dated 21.12.1983 (date in the agreement wrongly mentioned as 21.10.1983) to purchase the disputed plot against the sale consideration of Rs. 34,125/- and against which alleged to pay Rs. 2,500/- to respondents-defendants. Plaintiff has instituted the civil suit for specific performance dated 11.12.1991, taking a stand that the disputed plot was part of the agricultural land and hence before transfer of the said plot, it was necessary to get no objection from the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976). Plaintiff averred that as per agreement, defendants are also agreed to get the N.O.C. and furnished information to the plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff was required to get the sale deed registered after making payment of balance sale consideration in pursuance to the agreement dated 21.12.1983. The plaintiff alleged his readiness and willingness and submitted that no information was furnished by respondents, regarding N.O.C. from the competent authority, hence the suit has been instituted.

4. Respondents-defendants has submitted written statement and have not denied the execution of agreement in question. Defendants have taken a plea that in order to seek approval from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, plaintiff and defendants jointly submitted an application dated 30.03.1984 under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The application was produced on record as Exhibit-A1. Defendants contend that as per Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, after expiry of 60 days with effect from submitting the application on 30.03.1984, there is a presumption of having approval of the competent authority hence thereafter, the plaintiff never agreed to purchase the disputed plot and hence the agreement has come to an end automatically with lapse of time. Defendants categorically denied that the plaintiff was ever ready or wiling to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed registered in pursuance to the agreement in question.

It may be noticed here that though defendants disputed the date of agreement as 21.12.1983 and contended that the agreement was executed on 21.10.1983, however, in view of admission of defendants about the execution of agreement to sale in question, the date is not of much material importance.

5. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of both parties, has observed that as far as agreement in question is concerned, the same is not disputed between the parties but it appears through Exhibit-A1 that a joint application dated 30.03.1984 was submitted by and on behalf of plaintiff and defendants before the competent authority under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and thereafter even on expiry of 60 days, the plaintiff has not proceeded to get executed the sale deed. The agreement has come to an end after lapse of limitation. The plea taken by plaintiff that defendants did not inform about the N.O.C. from the competent authority under the Urban land Ceiling Act of 1976, was candidly declined in view of submission of the joint application dated 30.03.1984 under the signatures of plaintiff as well of defendants. In such factual matrix, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for specific