IMPORTANT POINT
The agreement to sell did not transfer the land, and the deletion of Section 168-A removed any legal impediment to executing the sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. Present appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 13.10.1992 passed by the Court of 11th Additional District Judge, Lucknow, in Civil Appeal No.22/92, Sri Ram Versus Hublal and another allowing the appeal of the defendant/respondent no.2 and dismissing the suit for specific performance of a contract of the plaintiff/appellant vide regular suit no.284/88 Hub Lal Versus Kalloo and another dated 24.12.92 by the Court of Munsif Hawali, Lucknow on the following amongst others.

4. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(1) Whether the learned Appellate Court below has committed manifest error of law in applying the provisions of Section-168-A of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1950') to the facts of the case?

5. The crux of the matter is that a registered agreement to sell was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of the appellant on 22.07.1986 regarding two biswa land in Khasra No.671, Village-Dehwa, Post-Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow, after taking advance money of Rs.5,000/-, remaining Rs.1,000/- was payable at the time of execution of sale deed. Despite repeated requests, respondent no.1 did not execute the sale deed in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 22.07.1986. Then, the appellant came to know that respondent no.1 had executed the sale deed dated 29.02.1988 in favour of respondent no.2 regarding the entire land in Khasra No.671. Thereafter, the appellant had filed a suit no.284 of 1988 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.07.1986 with a further prayer that both the respondents may be directed to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 22.07.1986. This suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 24.12.1991 in favour of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement dated 24.11.1991, respondent no.2, the subsequent vendee of respondent no.1, had filed an appeal registered as appeal no.22 of 1992. The appellate Court allowed the above appeal by judgement dated 13.10.1992 and judgement and decree dated 24.11.1991 of Munsif Hawali, Lucknow, was set aside on the ground that the agreement to sell dated 22.07.1986, will amount to fragmentation of the land, hence violating Section-168-A of the Act, 1950, is void. Feeling aggrieved by the above judgement dated 13.10.1992, the present second appeal was filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 applies to the transfer of land through a sale deed, gift deed or exchange and not on the agreement to sell. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No.352 of 1993 (Ram Pratap and Others Vs. Gulab) vide order dated 25.07.2013. In that judgement, the learned Single Judge observed that Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 would not apply to the agreement to sell and further observed that the provision of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950 has been deleted by the UP Amendment of 2004, therefore, there is no bar for execution of sale deed as on date.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is an established legal position that after execution of the agreement to sell, if the vendor transfers the land to another person, then the vendor, as well as the subsequent purchaser, will have to join in executing the sale deed if a suit for specific performance of the agreement is allowed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following Apex Court judgements in Lala Durga Prasad And Others Vs. Lal Deep Chand And Others reported in (1953) 2 SCC 509; R.C. Chandiok And Another Vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal and Others reported in 1970 (3) SCC 140 and; Rathnavathi And Another Vs. Kav