The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1968, and the provisions of 4(h) of Patta in determining the validity and enforceability of the land agreement.

1. This appeal was admitted on 1st January, 1998. Along with the appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:-

1. When the land was granted a Nautor in the year 1973 under the old Nautor Rules, could the agreement to sell the suit land be contested by the Alignee on the ground that the same could not have been alienated by 20 years, when the said restriction was not applicable to grant the nautor in old Nautor Rules?

2. Whether the prohibition for alienating the land could be judicially presumed, when there was no evidence available on the record supporting the factum of prohibition of the alienation of the suit land?

3. Whether in a suit for specific performance when there is some restriction for alienation, could a decree of a specific performance be refused when on the date of passing of the decree no such restriction was operative?

4. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has wrongly rejected the discrimination of DW-2 who duly proved the execution of the Agreement by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also proving the sale consideration to be Rs. 85,000/- as contained in the Agreement, are not the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court contrary to the oral and documentary evidence holding the sale consideration to be Rs. 2,85,000/- vitiated and is not a result of misreading and misappreciating the oral and documentary evidence?

5. When there is no evidence available on the record of the market value, could the learned Lower Appellate Court of its own imagination on the basis of the current market value could give an imaginative value of the suit property, are not such findings vitiated being extraneous to the record?

6. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in not drawing any adverse inference against the defendant in not having proved the patta granted under nautor proving the restriction on the alienation of the land granted to the defendant?

2. In the absence of there being anything said as to on which of the substantial questions of law the appeal was admitted, at the time of hearing of this appeal, learned Counsel for the parties stated that this appeal may be heard on all these questions and court may record its findings on those. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the parties were heard on the above referred substantial questions of law and with their assistance record of the trial Court was also examined.

3. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7th September, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 97 whereby appeal filed by respondent-defendant was allowed and as a consequence of it, decree for specific performance passed by the learned trial Court in civil suit No. 285/92, decided on 29th October, 1996, titled as Ishari Lal v. Smt. Solma was dismissed. Parties are being referred to hereinafter as plaintiff and defendant respectively.

4. As per averments made in the plaint, defendant entered into an agreement Ex. P.W. 2/A dated 24th December, 1989, to sell land measuring 2 bigha 2 biswas comprised in khata/khatauni No. 718/847, khasra No. 1968, measuring 2-2-0 bigha, situated in Phati Benchi, Kothi Raison, Tehsil and District Kullu. There was a three storeyed house standing on the part of this land which was covered by this agreement, to be referred as suit land in this judgment. Consideration as per plaintiff settled for all this was Rs. 85,000/-.

5. Out of this agreed consideration Rs. 22,000/- were received by the defendant as earnest money and balance amount was agreed to be received by him at the time of execution and presentation of this sale deed for registration when possession was also agreed to be delivered. Plaintiff claims that he made repeated requests to the defendant to execute sale deed, get it registered, receive the balance amount and also deliver possession of the suit land, but without any consequence. As a last resort, he claims that registered legal notice was issued