A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) The suit filed by Sohan Lal for specific performance of agreement was decreed by the trial Court to the extent of the 1/2 of property in dispute. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the lower appellate Court, Hence Sohan Lal is in second Appeal.
(2.) On June 10, 1958, Mela Singh agreed to sell 41 kanals 12 Marlas of land for a sum of Rs. 12500/- in favour of Sohan Lal and Anand Parkash in equal shares. A sum of Rs. 600/- was received by Mela Singh as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed after Mela Singh who was allottee of the land, was conferred proprietory rights. Mela Singh died on June 21, 1958 and his children and widow were impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 8. The sale certificate in favour of the defendants was issued in by the Rehabilitation department on June 20, 1964. These defendants sold 19 kanals of land in favour of Karam Chand on January 31, 1954. In the meantime Anand Prakash relinquished his rights in favour of defendants by getting Rs. 300/- back from them. The case of Sohan Lal plaintiff was that Anand Prakash had relinquished his rights of his land and thus he was entitled to specific performance of the agreement of 1958 with respect to the entire land of 41 Kanals 12 Marlas. Sale certificate was to be issued in favour of Mela Singh deceased by the Rehabilitation Department on receipt of Rs. 6698/-. Ultimately the aforesaid amount was arranged by Sohan Lal and paid to legal heirs of Mela Singh who deposited the same with the Rehabilitation Department and ultimately sale certificate was issued. The suit was contested by the defendants on different grounds. Karam Chand claimed to be bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement. The plaintiff had no right to purchase the entire property. The suit was barred by time. The trial proceeded on the following issues:- 1. Whether Mela Singh deceased executed an agreement dated 10.6.1958? OPP 2. Whether Mela Singh deceased was competent to sell the entire land in dispute to the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiff and defendant No. 16 bars the present suit? 4. Whether defendant No. 9 is a bona fide purchaser of 19 Kanals of land in dispute for value and without notice of the plaintiff or not. If so, to what effect? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract, if so, against whom? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perfom his part of contract? OPP
(3.) It was asserted in the grounds of appeal that Anand Parkash had relinquished his rights in favour of Sohan Lal, the appellant, and thus Sohan Lal was entitled to specific performance of the contract as a whole with respect to the entire property. This contention obviously cannot be accepted in view of the statement of Anand Parkash PW 2 as referred to above and Exhibit D3/A vide which Anand Parkash took back Rs. 300/- from the defendants and relinquished his rights in their favour. Oral statement of the plaintiff thus was rightly rejected. Section 15 of the Specifrc Relief Act gives power to any party to contract for its specific performance. In the facts of the present case it could be done only if the contract was indivisible. Ex.P- 1, contract dated June 10, 1958, specifically mentions sale to be effected in favour of Sohan Lal and Anand Parkash in equal shares (ba hissa musavi). The contract was thus divisible and Sohal Lal was only entitled to 1/2 share of disputed land by specific performance of the contract as Anand Parkash had relinquished his rights in favour of the defendants.;