IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to Sell--Not be enforced where vendor was not competent to sell.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- This judgment of mine shall dispose of two identical appeals i.e., RSA No.3193 and 3194 of 2005 as similar question of law on similar facts is involved in both the appeals. However, for convenience sake, facts of the case have been culled out from RSA No.3194 of 2005.

2. The appellant filed a suit for confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 8.2.1988 executed by Dula son of Mehnga (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 63,250/- which were also paid by him to Dula at the time of execution of the agreement on account of earnest money regarding the land in dispute. As per the averments made in the plaint, the suit land was owned and possessed by Dula son of Mehnga (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) who agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff and in this respect an agreement to sell was executed between them on 8.2.1988 and land measuring 25 Kanals 6 Marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs. 63,250/- along with Engine 8 HP Bore, Fan, Arra, passage and all connected rights. It was further stated that a sum of Rs. 63250/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to Dula son of Mehnga and possession of the land was handed over to him by the aforesaid vendor. It was also agreed that the vendor was given one month’s notice to the vendee and fixed a date for execution of the sale deed. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit land was purchased by Mehnga son of Gangu (father of Dula vide vide conveyance deed dated 29.4.1982(Ex.D1) from Tehsildar (M)-cum- (S), Kapurthala and as per the conditions of this deed, the purchaser of this land could not transfer or sell this land for a period of 10 years from the date of sale and later on this period of 10 years was raised to 20 years as per entries made in the revenue record as per policy of the State Government. So the suit land could not be transferred for 20 years and the said period of 20 years had come to an end on 29.4.2002 and after this date, there was no bar for the transfer of this suit land. It was also stated that in pursuance of the terms of agreement dated 8.2.1988, the plaintiff had been and uptil now is in possession of the suit land since the execution of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing and shall remain ready in future. It was also mentioned in the plaint that Dula had died on 1.12.1999 and the defendant-respondents were his widow and sons. The plaintiff requested the defendants on 1.5.2002 to execute the sale deed in his favour regarding the suit land as per terms of the agreement dated 8.2.1988 executed by Dula in favour of the plaintiff being his legal heirs but they refused to do so. Hence this suit.

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was further stated that the defendants were Harijans by caste and the suit land was Nazool land which belonged to Central Government and was allotted to Mehnga being Harijan who was the father of Dula. It was further stated that as per the policy of the Government, the suit land cannot be sold to any Scheduled Caste person within a period of 20 years. Hence the alleged agreement was void and illegal and against the policy of the Government. It was also stated that Dula son of Mehnga was limited owner till his life in the land in suit as per notification No.14/2/90/LR111/4468 dated 18.3.1991 issued by the Government of Punjab duly published in gazette dated 26.3.1991 and vide this notification, restrictions were imposed on transferee of Nazool land to the effect that he cannot alienate or sell the land in any manner permanently or temporarily to any person and the said land shall go down only by inheritance. Hence Dula was not competent to enter into an agreement and had got no l