The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation as the cause of action accrued much earlier than the filing of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Mittal, J. - The present appeal directs challenge against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 passed by the trial Court was allowed, suit of the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.08.1982 was decreed.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff has set up agreement to sell dated 19.08.1982 in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 0 biswa 10 biswasis Pukhta comprised in khasra No.2469/1315 situated in village Dhandra-I, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98. According to respondent/plaintiff, Harnek Singh, father of the appellants/defendants agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per bigha kacha. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to Harnek Singh at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It was agreed that Harnek Singh will execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff after getting permission from the competent authority under the Punjab Land Ceiling Act for sale of suit land. Registration and conveyance charges were to be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendants/appellants failed to execute the sale deed despite registered notice dated 10.01.2000 calling upon them to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. It is further averred that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 19.08.1982 when agreement to sell was executed and on 30.01.2000 when defendants finally refused to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The appellants/defendants failed to file the written statement and their defence was struck off vide order dated 29.05.2000. The ex parte proceedings initiated against the appellants, at one point of time, were set aside vide order dated 12.01.2006 and they were given opportunity to cross examine witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff.

4. To prove his case, the respondent/plaintiff examined Tarlochan Singh PW-1, Gurdial Singh PW-2 and Bahadur Singh plaintiff appeared for himself as a witness, Having heard counsel for the parties in the light of materials on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 by holding that the suit is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable. As has been noticed hereinbefore, appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff/respondent was allowed by the first Appellate Court.

5. The sole submission made by counsel for the appellants is that as per case set up by the respondent/plaintiff, agreement to sell was executed by late Harnek Singh on 19.08.1982. In the agreement, there is a recital that the vendor would get necessary permission for sale of land from the competent authority. It is argued that there is no dispute between the parties that the said permission was required to be obtained by the vendor under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act'). Counsel would urge that Section 27 of the Act that deals with prohibition on transfer of urban property except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority was declared to be unconstitutional by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 13.11.1980 in the case Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singh Ji Vs. Union of India , (1981) AIR SC 234 , therefore, respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to seek extension of time on the pretext that the vendor had not obtained necessary permission of the competent authority under the Act. In the alternative, it is argued that even if it is assumed that the parties were not aware of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and for that reason in an agreement of sale executed in the year 1982, there was recital with regard to obtaining permission by the vendor, the questio