Point of Law: Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides as “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was defendant No. 1 before the learned Court below (hereinafter to be called as “defendant No. 1”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 29.03.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 16/13, whereby findings recorded in judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 72/2006 were reversed and defendant No. 1 was directed to get the sale deed executed qua the suit property in favour of respondent No. 1, who was the plaintiff before the learned Court below (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”).

2. Briefly the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 217/259, Khasra No. 165, 167, 940, 1113/942/1, 1117/959, 1390/1115, 958, 1119/960, 1121/961, 1123/962, 1233/963, 1125/964, 965, 966, 1470/1394, 1463/1401, kita 16, measuring 191800, situated at Mohal Baror, Pargna Gudial, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter to be called as the “suit property”) is recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and proforma defendants No. 2 to 14. Defendant No. 1 is having share of land comprised in Khasra No. 796/3980, measuring 31918 bighas in the entire land. He had a pucca house consisting of three rooms, comprised in Khasra No. 1117/959 and 1173/962, measuring 00600 bighas which is a part of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 sold the aforesaid house alongwith courtyard and kitchen garden for a total consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/-vide agreement dated 14.08.2004 to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be husband of plaintiff’s cousin, being her maternal aunt’s daughter. Taking undue advantage of relationship the plaintiff claims that she had fallen into trap of defendant No. 1 in advancing aforesaid amount. Notice was issued to defendant No. 1 for specific performance of contract, but while replying the same he denied the same, whereas possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 14.08.2004. Defendant No. 1 was time and again asked to get the sale deed executed or registered and sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiff, but he was adamant. Cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of July, 2005 when defendant denied execution of agreement and also in the month of June, 2006, when he again refused to comply with the same. Therefore, the plaintiff sought decree for specific performance of contract dated 14.08.2004. The plaintiff also sought permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit property.

3. Claim of the plaintiff was resisted and contested by defendant No. 1 and preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts were taken. On merits, it has been pleaded that agreement does not reveal total area alongwith the built up portion which is being claimed to have been sold to the plaintiff and no suit can be filed on the basis of agreement in question. It has been further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that he never undertook to get the sale deed registered and sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiff. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

4. In replication, averments of the written statement are denied and that of the plaint are reaffirmed.

5. On 08.05.2008, the learned Court below framed the following issues for determination and adjudication :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance of contract dated 14.08.2004, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, if so, i