Agreements lacking specific property details are unenforceable; specific performance is not guaranteed and must meet requirements of certainty and equity.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The plaintiff, Mahabir Singh, has approached this Court in the present second appeal, challenging the reversal of the decree passed in his favour by the trial court. His suit for specific performance had been decreed on 09.02.1995 by the Trial Court. However, the first appellate court, by judgment dated 26.10.1995, allowed the appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

2. To avoid any ambiguity, the parties are referred to by their original description before the trial court. The entire record, as available on DMS, has been duly perused.

3.1. Plaintiff’s Case: Mahabir Singh (plaintiff) and Dharambir Singh (defendant No.1) are real brothers. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1, being the owner of the suit property situated in Village Gochhi, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, comprising 59 Kanals 3 Marlas of agricultural land, a residential house (marked ABCD in site plan Ex.P2), and a Gher (marked ABCD in site plan Ex.P3), had agreed to sell the same to him. This agreement to sell, dated 21.10.1989 (Ex.P1), was allegedly executed for total sale consideration of ¹ 1,00,000/-, out of which ¹ 20,000/- was paid as earnest money. The stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 15.06.1990.

3.2. According to the plaintiff, he duly presented himself before the Sub-Registrar, Beri, on the appointed date, ready with the balance consideration. However, defendant No.1 did not appear. Subsequently, the plaintiff learnt that defendant No.1 had sold 32 Kanals of the suit land to defendant Nos.2 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- vide sale deed dated 28.05.1991 (Ex.P4). He then instituted the present suit seeking (i) specific performance of the agreement dated 21.10.1989 and (ii) a declaration that the subsequent sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was illegal and void.

4.1. Defendant No.1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte.

4.2. Contesting Defendants’ Stand: Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their written statement asserted that they had purchased 32 Kanals of the land lawfully, for valuable consideration, and without any notice of the alleged prior agreement. They alleged that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was a forged and fabricated document, created in collusion between the two brothers. They accordingly claimed the protection of being bona fide purchasers and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Findings of the Trial Court: Upon evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them, the trial court held that the agreement dated 21.10.1989 (Ex.P1) stood duly proved and further held that defendant Nos.2 to 4 were not bona fide purchasers. The suit was thus decreed on 09.02.1995.

6. Findings of the Appellate Court: However, in appeal filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the learned Additional District Judge took a different view. While affirming the finding that agreement Ex.P1 was proved to have been executed by defendant No.1, the appellate court observed that the agreement did not contain any description whatsoever of the agricultural land intended to be sold - neither khasra numbers nor khewat, khatauni, or boundaries. The appellate court further held that the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was executed almost a year after the target date of the agreement and so, not in haste as was observed by trial court; and that the vendees had no notice, actual or constructive, of the alleged prior contract. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were accordingly held to be bona fide purchasers for value, leading to a dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit in toto, vide judgment dated 26.10.1995.

7.1. Appellant’s Contentions: Assailing the appellate court’s judgment, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that once both courts had concurrently held the agreement (Ex.P1) to be duly executed, the appellate court erred in denying specific p