RANJIT SINGH (DECEASED) REPTD. BY HIS LRS. AND ORS. Vs. NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN REPTD. BY LRS. & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal whose suit for specific performance has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff Bhagwan Singh (now deceased) filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated Jan. 12, 1966, with respect to the land measuring 12/13 bighas. According to him, a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before March, 1, 1966. According to the plaintiff, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance price of Rs. 5,000.00. The plaintiff claimed a decree for specific performance and in the alternative claimed Rs. 5000.00 as damages. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the agreement was void being indefinite and vague and that the plaintiff had committed breach of the agreement. The subsequent vendee, defendant No. 2, pleaded that she had no knowledge of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and that the same was vague and indefinite as regards the identity of the land. She further pleaded that she was a bona fide purchaser for value of the land purchased. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that the defendant had committed breach thereof, defendant No. 2 had come to know about the factum of agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 but the agreement to sell was vague and indefinite as regards the identity of the land. In view of that finding, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. However, a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,000.00 was passed which was given as earnest money by the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff filed the appeal in this Court which was dismissed on Aug. 16, 1982. The learned Single Judge after going through the evidence and the agreement came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell regarding the property to be sold was vague and indefinite. Consequently, the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance was maintained.

(3.) The short question involved in this appeal is whether the agreement to sell is vague and indefinite or not. Primarily, it is a question of fact, which could not be gone into in the letters patent appeal. Moreover, both the Courts below have been the agreement. The relevant portion of the said agreement has been re-produced by the learned Single Judge also. After going through the same, we do not find any justification to interfere with the finding that the same was vague and indefinite.