An agreement to sell land that is vague and indefinite as to the identity of the land is void and cannot be enforced under the Specific Relief Act.

R.N.Mittal, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Sangrur, dated 7th of August, 1971, dismissing his suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell by defendant No. 1, dated 12th of January, 1966.

2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that Nawab Mohd. Iftkhar Ali khan, defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement dated 12th of January, 1966 with the plaintiff and agreed to sell land measuring 12/13 bighas situated at Malerkotla. He received Rs. 1,000/- as advance. It was further agreed that the sale deed was to be executed by defendant No. 1 before 1-3-1966 and in case he failed to do so, the plaintiff was entitled to get the same executed through the Court and to receive Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. The plaintiff further states that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant committed breach of the agreement and sold some land in favour of defendant No. 2, who had full knowledge about his agreement with defendant No. 1 and agreed to sell some land to defendant No. 3. Consequently, he prayed that a decree for specific performance be passed in his favour. In the alternative be claimed Rs. 5000/- as damages.

3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 inter alia pleaded that the agreement was void being indefinite and vague and that the plaintiff committed breach of the agreement. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that she had no knowledge of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and that the same was vague and indefinite as regards the identity of the land, she further stated that she was a bona fide purchaser for value of the land and consequently the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and the defendant committed breach thereof, that defendant No. 2 had come to know about the factum of agreement to sell was vague and indefinite as regards identity of the land. Consequently it dismissed the suit for specific performance. However, it passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- given as earnest money, in favour of the plaintiff. He has come up in appeal against the judgement and decree of the trial Court to this Court.

5. The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the agreement of sale dated 12th of January, 1966, is vague and indefinite as regards the identity of land. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the agreement is not vague and indefinite as was held by the Court. He submits that the parties knew the particulars of the land which was agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff. He also referred to the statement of Abdul Gafoor P.W. 5 and defendant No. 1 to show that the land was ascertained before the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement for sale.

6. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel but am not impressed by it. In order to determine the issue, it is necessary to set out the relevant portions of the agreement which are as follows :-

"Received a sum of Rs. 1000/-....... on account of earnest money in respect of land measuring about 12 or 13 bighas having width of 30 karams and length of 160 karams out of that of the well known as `Chah imliwala situate near the Tube-well, Dhob Ghat adjacent to the land cultivated by S. Bhawan Singh Sahib, Vendee, son of the S. Kaku Singh Sahib ..... The aforesaid land shall be sold to the Sardar Sahib at the rate of Rs. 1,900/- (Rs. one thousand nini hundred) per bigha......."

7. The agreement neither contains the exact area of land to be sold to the plaintiff nor the boundaries. It is true that it gives the length and breadth of the land but it does not pin point the place from which it was to be measured. Unless the point from which it was to be measured was given, no demarcation can