The key legal principle established is that specific performance of an agreement to sell can be upheld if the identification of the land and the payment of the sale consideration are clear, and the agreement is not void despite being unregistered.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

C.M.No.8611-C of 2017

Allowed as prayed for.

Photocopy of the agreement to sell, Annexure P-1, is taken on record.

C.M.No.8173-C of 2017

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 136 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by the affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 136 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA No.3388 of 2017

Defendant-appellant has filed regular second appeal against judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2015, passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Naraingarh, confirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court.

1. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.01.2008. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had entered into an agreement to sell with respect to 35 kanals being half share of 70 kanals of land described in the plaint for a total sale consideration of Rs.20 lacs.

2. According to the plaintiff, the entire sale consideration was received. It has further mentioned that a dispute with respect to inheritance of "Siria" is pending in the High Court and defendant will inform the plaintiff about the decision of the said appeal through the registered post and thereafter the plaintiff will get the sale deed executed within a period of two months.

3. Defendants appeared and denied execution of the agreement to sell. It was claimed that the agreement to sell is illegal, null and void. Defendants also took a plea that he was wanting to authorise plaintiff to take care of the litigation. However, he has forged and fabricated the agreement to sell.

4. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed with a detailed judgment.

5. Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the courts below on following grounds:-

(i) the agreement is vague as description of the land is not identified by khasra numbers;

(ii) the agreement to sell is dependent upon an uncertain event and, therefore, the agreement to sell is void;

(iii) the agreement to sell is not registered, therefore, it cannot be enforced.

6. I have considered the arguments addressed by counsel for the appellant and with her able assistance gone through the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

7. First argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the agreement is vague and it is not identified by khasra numbers. In this respect, I had requested the learned counsel to establish from record that defendant was owner of any other piece of land. The answer of learned counsel is that the defendant-appellant is not the owner of any other land in the village. If the defendant was only owner of 35 kanals land in village Gobindpura and he had entered into an agreement to sell with respect to that land only and parties to the agreement to sell were clear about the identification of land, then the argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Once the defendant-appellant had only one piece of land in a particular village, then the argument that the land is not identified with khasra numbers is not available. A reading of the issues also do not establish that such issue was ever claimed by the plaintiff before the courts below.

8. Second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the agreement to sell is dependent upon future uncertain event and therefore, the agreement is void.

9. I have carefully gone through the agreement. The total sale consideration had been paid. Only registration of the sale deed was postponed till decision of a litigation pending in the Court. Such agreement cannot be said to be void. Defendant has admitted his signatures. Defendant has not been able to lead any evidence to prove that agreement was forged and fabricated. Agreement to sell has been proved by attesting witnesses. Plaintiff has also appeared in the witness box to suppor