GURNAM KAUR Vs. MAHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed as they have arisen out of the same suit. The plaintiff had filed the suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff,in brief, was that Gurcharan Singh had executed an agreement to sell dated 3.4.1991 qua 21 kanals 8 marlas of land bearing khasra number 41//4,7, 8/1 min. ` 1,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant-Gurcharan Singh towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 5.5.1992 after receiving the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff remained present in the Office of Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date but the defendant failed to appear. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) DEFENDANTS, in their written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was further averred that the suit land was shamlat deh and the plaintiff was not owner of the same. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Bhagwan Singh vs. Nawab Mohammad Iftikhar Ali Khan and others 1982 PLJ 386 wherein it has been held that the agreement to sell which did not contain exact area of land nor boundaries was, thus, vague and indefinite and no specific performance would be enforceable qua the said agreement to sell.