The court established the principle that the agreement for sale of land becomes frustrated and unable to be specifically performed if substantially the land/plot numbers of the chak have been changed during consolidation operations.

S.K. Gupta, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred challenging the concurrent judgments and orders of two lower courts. An Original Suit No. 43/1993 was instituted on 11.3.1993 by the plaintiff Rakesh against the defendant Amreek Singh seeking specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 4.6.1991. Such suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 22.2.2001, where against the First Appeal No. 24/2001 was preferred by the defendant Amreek Singh along with a subsequent purchaser Sardar Balwinder Singh and such appeal too could not find favour in adjudication done by the Additional District Judge and it was dismissed on 14.2.2006 affirming the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the subsequent purchaser Sardar Balwinder Singh preferred this second appeal. During the long pending of almost a decade, Sardar Balwinder Singh passed away. Hence, his widow and two sons were substituted and they pursued this appeal against the plaintiff Rakesh. Amreek Singh, who was the original defendant, has been impleaded as a proforma respondent herein this second appeal, which was admitted for hearing by a coordinate Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether, suit for specific performance of contract can be decreed pertaining to newly allotted chak during the consolidation operation instead of the old chak pertaining to which the agreement to sale was executed by the defendant?

(ii) Whether, suit for specific performance can be decreed against subsequent bona fide purchaser, or not?

3. The whole controversy of this litigation is based on the peculiar fact that as per the terms of agreement to sell, the sale deed had to be executed on or any time before 2.6.1992, but during this period the consolidation operations took place in the area and certain other plots were proposed for allotment to Amreek Singh where for Aakar Patra-23 was issued. Plaintiff Rakesh did not take any initiative up to 2.6.1992, the stipulated time, asking Mr. Amreek Singh to execute the sale deed and even thereafter he kept mum for further almost nine months. So, Mr. Amreek Singh executed a sale deed on 23.2.1993 in favour of Sardar Balwinder Singh, who was none other but his real son-in-law and originally a resident of District Karnal (Haryana).

4. Soon thereafter, Rakesh came to know this fact that Amreek Singh has executed a sale deed in favour of his son-in-law on 23.2.1993 for all the plots, which were proposed to him by the consolidation authorities by way of issuing the Aakar Patra-23. So, he instituted the Original Suit on 11.3.1993 for specific performance. In the plaint, the details of the property was mentioned in two schedules. One was in Schedule "A" which entailed the property as mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 4.6.1991, and another was Schedule "B", wherein the number of plots and areas, which were proposed to Amreek Singh for allotment by way of issuing the Aakar Patra-23, were described. He made a prayer that the defendant be asked to execute the sale deed, as per the terms of agreement to sell, of all the plots/property which have been now proposed to be allotted to him after consolidation.

5. There was also one more peculiar fact pertaining to same agreement to sell that at the time of its execution on 4.6.1991, Mr. Rakesh (proposed vendor) paid Rs. 1,39,500/-, in advance, out of the total consideration of Rs. 1,49,500/-. Thus, only Rs. 10,000/- had to be paid within next one year, i.e. up to 2.6.1992. The total area of the land covered under the agreement was 7 bigha 13 biswa 6 biswansi and 23 kachwansi. This area was of the period of pre-consolidation, while after the consolidation it was increased and became 8 bigha 3 biswa and 2 biswansi, the plots numbers thereof have been narrated in Schedule "B" of the plaint.

6. Although it has been argued on behalf