RAMDITTA Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by a plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to exchange lands. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no complete agreement to exchange inter partes. It also found that the plaintiffs land had considerably deteriorated in quality, while the defendant had effected improvements on his lands. ' On that score also, the Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that it would not be equitable to decree specific performance. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, who affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main point for determination here is whether there was a completed agreement between the parties regarding the exchange of their lands. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 3 of Mandi Regulation 2 of 1975 Samvat, only sales, mortgages, gifts or exchanges needed the previous sanction of the Darbar. His contention was that an agreement to exchange did not require any such sanction. Reliance was placed by him on 'Madho Singh v James R. R. Skinner', AIR 1842 Lah 243 (A), where, with reference to the provisions of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, a Division Bench of that High Court held that the operation of Section 3, Punjab Land Alienation Act, 1900, was limited to sales and mortgages.

(3.) IT is, therefore, clear that in the absence of the previous sanction of the Darbar, the transaction in question would not amount to a completed agreement for exchange.