MODI, J.—This is an appeal by defendant Balwant Singh against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar, whereby he decreed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land.

2. Under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Permanent Allotment of Evacuee Agricultural Lands) Rules, 1963, hereinafter described as the Rules, the defendant, who was a non-claiment displaced person was allotted 14 bighas and 8 biswas of agricultural land situated at village Noornagar, tehsil Kishangarh, district Alwar, fully described in para 1 of the plaint. On 17-10 66 the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the said land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1000 per bigha and received Rs, 500 as earnest money. He also delivered possession of a portion of the land measuring 3 bighas 14 biswas of Khasra No. 256 to the plaintiff and further promised to execute a sale deed and get it registered in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the residual consideration of money, after obtaining a sanad for the land from the government within 4 months from the date of the agreement. This agreement is Ex. 1 on the record. On the expiry of the period of 4 months, the plaintiff served a notice to the defendant and ultimately brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, for specific performance of the agreement Ex. 1, and claimed, in the alternative, damages to the tune of Rs. 14,800. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to pay the balance of the consideration money, but the defendant deliberately and malafide did not deposit the instalments due to the Govt. and obtain the sanad with a view to avoid performance of the contract. In his written statement, the defendant denied the agreement all together and further pleaded that he being a non-claimant displaced person had no right to transfer the land without depositing the price of the land and other dues due to the Govt. According to the defendant, the transaction was null and void. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, who tried the suit, framed seven issues, but the material issues for the purposes of this appeal are issues Nos. 1 to 4 which run as under:

"Issues Nos. 1 to 4—

(1) Whether on 17-10-66 the defendant entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land comprised in khasra Nos. mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint @ Rs. 1000 per bigha and did the plaintiff pay Rs. 500 as advance money to the defendants as against the said agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff and did the defendant agree to perform the contract within four months?

(2) Whether in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 17-10-66 the defendant delivered possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 256 to the plaintiff and is the plaintiff in its possession since that day?

(3) Is the defendant a non-claimant displaced person and has no right to transfer allotted land and is the transaction of this nature null and void and is the present suit not maintainable on its basis?

(4) In case issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, is the plaintiff entitled to decree for specific performance of the contract?"

The learned Additional District Judge on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties found that the defendant did execute the agreement Ex. 1 and that he has also received a sum of Rs. 500 as earnest money and also delivered possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 256 to the plaintiff on the date of the agreement. Dealing with issues Nos. 3 and 4, the learned Additional District Judge placed reliance on the cases, namely, Mrs. Chandnee Widya Vati vs. Dr. C.L. Katial (1), Ramulu vs. Anan-tharamulu (2) and Syed Jalal vs. Targopal Ram Reddy (3) and held that the agreement was not null and void or forbidden by law. On the above findings, he decreed the suit in the following manner:

"The plaintiffs suit for specific performance of the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document