IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of a specific performance agreement where the entire consideration was paid and possession was given, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The original plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Smt. Anand Kaur brought Civil Original Suit No. 17/2007 for specific performance of contract against the defendant-appellants. The suit was decreed by the learned trial judge by judgment and decree dated 08.12.2008. The decree and judgment of the trial judge was challenged by the defendant in Civil Appeal No. 01/2009, which was also dismissed on 28.03.2023. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants.

3. Now the question for consideration is whether this second appeal involves any substantial question of law.

4. A brief fact of this case is that late Shri Krishan Vyas (father of the appellants) had entered into a written agreement dated 17.07.1983. The agreement (Ex.1) discloses that late Krishna Vyas agreed to sale his plot No. 319 in Sector A, Saraswati Nagar, Jodhpur to original plaintiff late Smt. Anand Kaur. The agreement further depicts that entire consideration money of Rs.12,000/- was received by the vendor and possession of the plot under sale was handed over to the purchaser. It was further stipulated that the vendor would execute the registered sale deed, as and when the purchaser would ask, in the name of purchaser or in the name of person suggested by the purchaser.

5. It is specifically stated that there would be no time limit for registration of the sale deed. The legal heirs/representatives of the vendor, in the event of death of vendor, would also be bound to execute the sale deed. It is further mentioned that all the documents in respect of the land under transfer was handed over to the purchaser. The suit was filed on 26.04.1995. It is stated that the vendor had promised that he had already applied for allotment letter in respect of the transferred plot to the authority concerned and as soon as would get the allotment letter, he would execute the sale deed. The allotment letter (Ex.16) was issued by Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur on 17.02.1984. The allotment letter is titled as license in favour of the vendor, however, besides other conditions of making of construction of house after leaving certain area, condition No. 9B reads as follows:

“The allottee shall not transfer the plot before expiry of ten years from the date of allotment and transfer after ten years shall be subject to such levy or impose as may be prescribed from time to time by the Government in this behalf.”

Evidently, the document was not a mere license, but was a transfer deed with right to sale the said property after expiry of the stipulated period.

6. Learned trial court accepted that the agreement between the parties is a valid agreement. The trial judge further found that since the transaction of sale was complete on the date of agreement itself, in as much as, the whole consideration was paid to the vendor and possession of the land was given to the vendee. There was no other part to be performed in pursuance of the contract by the purchaser/plaintiff to require a case for readiness or willingness to perform her part. The first appellate court dismissed the challenge of the decree of the trial judge.

7. The appellants have raised the following questions as substantial questions of law in this second appeal:

“(i) Whether the Exhibit 1 was an agreement to sale or something else, and can the instant suit be decreed in the backdrop of the same?

(ii) Whether the Exhibit-1 was valid and duly executed, passing the threshold of having any sanctity in law or the same was void and unlawful in the teeth of various statutory provisions?

(iii) Whether on true and correct interpretation of the Exhibit-16 dated 19.02.1984 issued in the name of the father of the appellant, the same can be termed as a license or a lease?

(iv) Whether the incessant readiness and willingness from the plaintiff was required to be proved from the inception of the alleged agreement to sale till the final decree was passed in the instant suit.

(v) Whether the issue of possession was relevant fo