SABINA, J. - (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:- "1.Whether the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land on 3.4.91 to the plaintiff?OPP 2.Whether the defendant had received sum of Rs. 1 lakh as earnest money?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract?OPP 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 6.Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs?OPD 7.Relief. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.1997 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement to sell till its realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the legal representatives of defendant-Gurcharan Singh also filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2002, the Additional District Judge, Jind allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and passed a decree for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the legal representatives of defendant was dismissed. Hence, the present appeals by the legal representatives of defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit land was shamlat deh and hence, Gurcharan Singh could not execute the agreement to sell in question in favour of plaintiff. Moreover, the agreement to sell in question was not enforceable as the property was not correctly defined therein.
(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.;