CHHAJJU RAM Vs. LACHHMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit claiming specific performance of the agreement of sale dated November 1, 1965 executed by respondent No. I in favour of the appellant Respondent No 2 was impleaded as a party in the suit as he was recorded as co-owner of Khasra No. 489/421, Village Hlimayun Pur out of which respondent No. I is alleged to have agreed to sell a plot of land. Toe suit was dismissed by t:ie trial Court and the first appeal was also dismissed. The Courts below held that the agreement of sale, Ex. P-2 dated November 1, 1965 was an ambiguous document and, therefore, specific performance was refused. It was further held that the plot agreed to be sold by respondent No. I was jointly owned by him and respondent No. 2 and so no decree for possession by way of specific performance could be granted. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The following issues were framed by the trial Court :

(3.) The question of law raised in this second appeal is the construction of the agreement of sale. Ex. P-2. Admittedly, yespondent No. I is the recorded owner ot 1/2 of khasra No. 489/421 of village Humayun Pur, Delhi measuring 1 bigha 19 biswas and Respondent No. 2 recorded as co-owner of the other half. The agreement. Ex P-2 does not give the total area of the plot to be sold or the total consideration. It only records toe agreement of sale between Lachhman Singh. respondent No. 1 and Chhajju Ram, appellant, for a plot of land at the rate of Rs. 28.00 per sq. yd. It, however, records the boundaries of the plot agreed to be sold allows :