- (1.) A. P. Singh, J. This Second Appeal by plaintiff has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code praying for setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 6. 7. 1995 which has been passed by the VIII Additional District Judge dismissing appellants' suit for specific performance of contract of sale against the defendant-respondents which had been decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, A|igarh by judg ment and decree dated 9-1-1979.
(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: Appellants filed suit for specific performance of their contract of sale entered by defendant-respondents, hereafter respondents, for selling the land in suit to the plaintiffs after plaintiffs paid the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendants. According to appellants respondent agreed to sell plots in suit to them for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- out of which at the time of agreement a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by them to respondents. Respondents were to obtain permission from authorities for transferring the land but despite permission having been ob tained by them and despite request of appel lants to execute the sale deed which was followed with notice to that effect they did not execute the sale deed, hence, the suit. Respondents denied having entered into agreement of sale with the appellant No. 1 and denied that the said appellant was en titled to file the suit or to demand execution of sale deed on the strength of the agree ment Ext. 5, which could be enforced only by Sri Devendrajit Singh Wadra, who as manager of appellant No. 2 had been a party to the contract of sale. It was also stated that plaintiff No. 2 too could not file the suit for specific performance nor he could enter into contract of sale as it was not a juristic person. It was further stated that respon dents obtained the permission for transfer of the land and thereafter a number of times they approached Sri D. S. Wadra to pay the remaining amount and get the sale deed executed but Sri Wadra paid no attention and now plaintiff cannot maintain the suit as they themselves were not interested in purchasing the land in suit as they had moved the Collector for making compul sory acquisition of the land in suit and some other land for the purpose of making con struction of school and hostel building though the proceeding could not materialise for the reason that the cost of the land assessed by the Collector was for too more than the amount mentioned in the agreement deed. It was also pleaded that appellants were never willing and ready to perform their part of the contract as they had no money ready and available with them to pay the remaining sum of Rs. 15,000/- for getting the sale deed executed. Number of other pleas were raised by the respondents presently for the disposal'of the appeal; their mention in this judgment is not re quired. On the pleadings of the parties several issues were settled and the suit of the appellants was decreed by the trial Court (The Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh) vide judgment and decree dated 9. 1. 1979. The respondents filed appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said appeal was heard and decided by the VIII Addl. District Judge, Aligarh. The lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree allowed respondents appeal upholding their pleas that suit was not main tainable at the instance of plaintiffs; the Lower Appellate Court, however, made a direction that out of sum of Rs. 30,000/- deposited in the Court, a sum of Rs, 15,000/- will be withdrawn by appellants whereas the remaining sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be withdrawn by the respondents. The costs was directed to be borne by the parties. In support of appeal, Sri K. N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate appearing on be half of the appellants raised following con tentions: (i) Plaintiff No. 2 was capable of filing suit and entering into contract and to hold property the view taken to the contrary by the Lower Appellate Court is wrong; in the alternative, the acts done by the plaintiff No. 2 will be presumed to have been done by plaintiff No. 1 which owns plaintiff No. 2; (ii) From the averments of Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint readiness and willing ness of the plaintiff to purchase the property as per the agreement was duly made out the Lower Appellate Court was not right in holding that there was no pleading in the plaint in that respect. (iii) The fact that the plaintiff-appel lants approached the district authorities for compulsory acquisition of the land in suit alongwith some other land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act will not be itself indicate that they were not interested in purchasing the land in suit under the terms of the agreement of sale and the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in drawing the conclusion to the contrary; (iv) Statement made by respondents in Para o of the W. S. amounts to their admis sion of the fact that Sri Devendra Jeet Singh Wadra entered into the agreement of sale as Secretary of plaintiff No. 1.
(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, but before commenting upon it, it is necessary to refer to the findings which have been recorded by the Lower Appellate Court on which appellants suit was dismissed. Lower Appellate Court framed as many as eight points for determination in the appeal. The points framed by the Lower Appellate Court were: (1) Whether the agreement dated 17. 12. 1974 was enforceable agreement, if so, at whose stance? (2) Whether appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and are still ready and willing to do so? (3) Whether the position of the land given in the agreement deed is vague and uncertain, if so, its effect ? (4) Whether the agreement dated 17. 12. 1974 is admissible in evidence for being unregistered ? (5) Whether relief of possession in respect of agricultural land can be granted by the Civil Courts? (6) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5,000/- from the respondents ? (7) Whether Urban Ceiling Act has any impact on the case ? and (8) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get back their sum of Rs. 20,000 which was paid by them to the defendants at the time of the agreement.;