Admit on the following substantial questions of law:
1- Whether on the basis of the alleged document dated 27.11.1998 being unilateral one a decree of specific performance could be passed under Chapter-II of Specific Relief Act and the learned courts below have committed manifest and substantial error of law in granting decree of specific performance on the basis of the alleged document dated 27.11.1998 which is not a contract within the meaning of provisions of Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act?
2- Whether once admittedly the plaintiff has 27 Bighas land of his own i.e. more than 16.5 acre land, as such relief of specific performance of contract would not have been granted with regard to the land in dispute inasmuch as the sale of the same would be void being prohibited by provisions of Section 154 read with Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?
3- Whether the learned courts below have erred in law in recording the findings on the issue of the readiness and willingness as the same have not been proved by the plaintiff within the purview of Section 16 of Specific Relief Act and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree of specific performance under Section 16 (c) coupled with Section 20 of Specific Relief Act inasmuch as total inaction on the part of the plaintiff for about three years in violation of terms and agreement, it would be inequitable to give the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff?
4- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and the appellate court was justified in rejecting the appeal?
Sri Balveer Yadav, Advocate filed Vakalatnana on behalf of the respondent. He may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute.
Order Date :- 9.4.2012 OP