JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Plaintiff has assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below dismissing his suit.

2. Facts:

2(i) Suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession through specific performance of an agreement by way of execution of sale deed of land measuring 0-9 marlas out of total land measuring 3 kanal 4 marla bearing Khasra No. 1467 comprised in Khewat No. 30 min, Khatauni No. 82 min, situated in village Kangar, Sub Tehsil Haroli, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. The foundational facts as set out in the plaint were that the plaintiff and defendants had executed an agreement to sell in respect to the above described land on 6.11.1992. Out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/-, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Despite stipulation in the agreement that sale deed will be executed on or before 10.11.1993, the defendants did not execute the sale deed. Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the civil suit with the above prayer was filed. Alternatively, plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs. 60,000/-

2(ii) Defendants though admitted their joint ownership and possession over the suit land but denied execution of the agreement in question. Their stand was that the agreement dated 6.11.1992, put forth by the plaintiff was a forged document, which did not even bear their signatures. They also pleaded that they alongwith plaintiff were members of a Committee, in which the plaintiff had contributed Rs.28,000/-. The Committee failed and plaintiff started demanding his money back from the defendants. Defendants expressed their inability to pay the amount in lump sum. In this regard plaintiff also moved an application before Police Post Haroli. Eventually, defendants paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff on receipts against due amount of Rs.28,000/-.

2(iii) After considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, both the learned Courts below concurrently held that the agreement dated 6.11.1992 was a vague document and incapable of enforcement. It was also held that the plaintiff could not prove the execution of this agreement in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is now taking his third chance by way of instant regular second appeal.

3(i). This second appeal was admitted on 6.3.2009 on following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the agreement to sell Exhibit PW-1/A inasmuch as it clearly identifies the property subject matter of agreement to sell and the findings thus recorded are vitiated?

2. Whether the courts below were wrong in dismissing the suit for specific performance by holding it to be hit of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act in the absence of any such plea raised by the respondents in the written statement and the findings thus recorded are beyond pleadings?

3. Whether the courts below have misread and mis appreciated the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and the findings thus recorded are vitiated?”

3(ii). During hearing of the instant appeal on 4.3.2021, it was noticed that the original agreement dated 6.11.1992 (Ext. PW-1/A) was written in Punjabi script. Its translation either in Hindi or in English was not available in the records of learned Courts below. Since it was a material document around which entire case revolved, therefore, on 4.3.2021, the Registry was directed to get this document translated in Hindi/English from the Official Translator. The English translation of this agreement (Ext. PW1/A) has now been supplied by the Official Translator. The contents of the agreement to sell dated 6.11.19992 (Ext. PW1/A) as translated by the Official Translator reads as under:-

“That we, Om Parkash and Malkiat Singh, Sons of Mansa Ram, R/o Village Kangar, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, presently residing at Delhi road, Nandpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, do here