Agreement for sale not void due to subsequent change in land holdings; enforceable under specific relief law.

1. This is a defendant's appeal from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mainpuri, by which the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of a parcel of land comprising of four plots 1.65 acres in area, in chak No. 601 stands decreed.

2. The plaintiff Man Singh on 4-5-1963 entered into an agreement with the defendant Pahunchi Lal to sell a parcel of land comprising of four plots, 1.65 acres in area, on payment of a consideration of Rs. 3200/-. Pahunchi Lal paid Rs. 2150/- as earnest money. The balance of Rs. 1050/- was payable at the time of registration. It was stipulated that the sale - deed would be executed and registered within one year from the close of consolidation operations in the village. It was further stipulated that out of the plots to be sold consisting of Bhumidhari and Sirdari, Pahunchi Lal would convert the Sirdari plots into Bhumidhari plots by depositing ten times of their rent. It was also stipulated that if during the consolidation proceedings new plots were substituted in place of the plots agreed to be sold then the substituted plots shall be sold. The above terms were reduced into writing and the document evidencing the agreement for sale on the terms above was duly executed by Pahunchi Lal and got registered. The original deed is Ext. I on record.

3. The Consolidation operations in the village came to an end on 24-4-1965 on the issue of a notification under S.52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the Consolidation operations chak No. 601 was allotted to Pahunchi Lal in which four plots agreed to be sold were substituted by two plots; Bhumidhari plot No. 639, 1.43 acres in area and Sirdari plot No. 740, 22 acres in area. On 3-8-1965 Man Singh gave a notice to Pahunchi Lal for executing the sale - deed and getting it registered on payment of Rs. 1050/-, the balance of the consideration. Pahunchi Lal did not execute the sale deed as demanded. Man Singh then filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on 30-8-1965 for specific performance of the sale of the above said Bhumidhari and Sirdari plots 1.65 acres in area on payment of Rs. 1050/-. In the alternative a decree was claimed for the return of the amount paid as earnest money and for damages for breach of contract.

4. Pahunchi Lal contested the suit, inter alia, on the pleas that agreement dated 4-5-1963 signed by him was void and unenforceable for the reasons: (a) his signatures were obtained thereon by fraud and undue influence exercised by the plaintiff (b) Man Singh was a tenure holder having more than twelve and half acres of land on the day when the said agreement was executed, thus it was hit by S.23 of the Contract Act, read with S.154 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was also pleaded that the contract of sale deed could not be specifically performed as the sirdari plots could not be transferred under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

5. The learned Munsif on the evidence on record found that the agreement to sell dated 4-5-1963 was duly executed and registered and was binding on the defendant there being no evidence on record of any fraud practised or any undue influence exercised on him by the plaintiff. He further held that as the defendant could not acquire Bhumidari rights by paying ten times rents of the Sirdari - plots, no decree for specific performance of the contract of sale in regard to Sirdari plots could be passed. He further held that though the plaintiff possessed more than twelve and half acres of land on the day when the agreement to sell, Ext. I, was executed, but on the date of the suit the plaintiff was not in possession of mo