An agreement to sell must contain essential details to identify the property and be enforceable. The absence of such details renders the agreement unenforceable for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya J. - For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 254 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This is the appellant-plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment of reversal.

CM-14451-C of 2014

RSA No.6067 of 2014 (O&M)

2. The appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, and, in the alternative, for the relief of recovery, on the pleadings that the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to 'the defendant) was owner of 1/5th share out of the 179/256 share (8 kanals 19 marlas), out of the land measuring 12 kanal 16 marla, as detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint, and as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1998-99. The respondent-defendant was, therefore, owner of 1 kanal 16 marla share out of the said land, on the basis of sale deed No.2270 dated 08.08.1995. The defendant sold 01 kanal 0 marla of land, vide sale deed No.959 dated 07.05.2004, to the plaintiff. He also sold 0 kanal 51/2 marla of land vide another sale deed No.1193 to Smt. Sheela Devi. Therefore, the defendant was left with only 0 kanal 101/2 marla share in the suit property. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that he and defendant had jointly purchased 179/256 share out of the land measuring 12 kanal 16 marla vide sale deed No.2270 dated 08.08.1995, and out of the said land they carved out plots. Some of the land was wasted in the streets, and after deducting the said land, plaintiff was allotted 1 kanal 16 marla land. Out of the said land, after execution of all the aforesaid sale deeds, the plaintiff was left with 0 kanal 101/2 marla of land. It has been averred that by writing dated 07.05.2004, defendant sold 350 sq. yards plot, located at the back side of Amarjit Dhillon's land, to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,22,500/-, and received the entire sale consideration in the presence of the witnesses. The defendant himself scribed the writing and signed it, admitting that he has no concern with the said land any longer. He also agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, for which he (plaintiff) was always ready and willing. On 17.04.2008, the plaintiff's counsel sent notice to the defendant to get the sale deed executed, but he refused to accept the notice. With these pleadings, the suit was filed.

3. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and stated that the alleged writing/agreement dated 07.05.2004 was illegal and void as the area, boundaries, khasra numbers and khata numbers have not been mentioned therein. The alleged agreement to sell is on a plain paper, un-stamped, and is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. On merits, execution of the writing/agreement dated 07.05.2004 was denied, and also receipt of the sale consideration amount.

4. The following issues were framed to settle the controversy between the parties:-

1. Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 07.05.2004 for the sale of the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,22,500/-? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP

3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 07.05.2004? OPP

4. If relief of specific performance is not granted in favour of plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of recovery of Rs.1,22,500/- along with interest? OPD

5. Whether no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief.

5. The plaintiff-Girdhari Lal appeared as PW-1, also examined Jiwan Kumar as PW-2, and Karam Singh as PW-3. He also tendered documents (Exhibits P-1 to P-13) to establish his case. On the other hand, the defendant appeared as DW-1 and tendered document (Exhibit D-1) before closing his evidence. The trial Court gave its findings on issue Nos.1 to 3 and 5 together, and decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff had