' ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.---This appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 15-5-2007 passed by learned single Judge of this Court, to the extent, whereby an application (C.M.A. No,4131 of 2007) under Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. In Suit No,1400/2004 filed by appellants/plaintiffs, was dismissed.
2. As briefly stated, the facts giving rise to present appeal are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed Suit No,1400 of 2004 for declaration, injunction and direction, on the side of original civil jurisdiction before this Court, stating therein that plaintiff No,1 is a well known builders and developers firm, and have on their credit various landmark projects, with unblemished reputation. Plaintiff No,1 entered into two agreements of sale with defendants Nos.1 to 4 through their General Attorney defendant No,5, both, dated 1st November, 2003 for the purchase of 48 acres of land (16 acres with defendant Nos.1 and 32 acres with defendants Nos.2 to 4) in respect of the agricultural/industrial/ residential land admeasuring 16 acres each out of Na Class No,309, situated at Deh Joreji, Bin Qasim Town, Karachi, granted in pursuance of the letters issued by defendant No,10 and mutated in Village Form VII by defendant No,6. Plaintiff No,1 purchased suit-land from. Defendant No,5 as attorney of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for total sale consideration of Rs,5,49,60,000, paid part consideration, and physical possession was handed over to the plaintiff No,
1. The suit-land had been frozen by defendants Nos. 6 and 10, which fact was clearly mentioned in the sale agreements, dated 1-11- 2003, therefore, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 applied to Defendant No,6 for regularization of suit-land in the terms of Ordinance III of 2001. The defendant No,6 informed defendants Nos.1 to 5 that in pursuance of section 4(2) of the Ordinance III of 2001, a sum of Rs,1,13,76,000 had been worked out by the Committee towards the differential Malkano and the same shall be paid in due course of time. As stated by plaintiffs, they continuously approached defendants Nos.1 to 5 for procurement of challan,- but the latter avoided the same in order to frustrate the contract. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract by way of paying the balance sale consideration to the vendor for pursuance of the sale agreements, but the defendants Nos.1 to 5 failed to procure challan from defendant No,6. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs were fully entitled to the protection under sections 41 and 52-A of the Transfer of Property Act as in part performance of two sale agreements, dated 1-11-2003 inclusive of irrevocable general power of sub attorney, dated 17- 11-2003, the plaintiffs were in physical as well as constructive possession of the suit property. The defendants Nos.1 to 5 neglected and avoided to transfer the suit-land in favour of the plaintiffs as per sale agreements, so also they had failed to obtain the challan from defendant No,6, while the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and inclined to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs,4,84,60,000 (Rupees four crore eighty four lac sixty thousand only) which amount was inclusive of payment of challan to defendant No,6.
' The plaintiff sought the following reliefs:--
(I) Judgment and decree for specific performance of sale agreement, dated 1-11-2003 in respect of Agricultural/Industrial/Residential Land admeasuring 16 acres out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji. Bin Qasim Town, Karachi having acquired the same by defendant No,1 in pursuance of letters bearing No,PS/MBR/(LU)/3648/92, dated 15-10-1992, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Nos. 1 and 5 with direction to the defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to execute the sale-deed and to get the same registered with the Sub-Registrar T-Division XIII, Karachi on receiving of balance sale consideration of Rs,1,60,20,000 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lac Twenty Thousand Only) from the plaintiffs and on failure the Nazir or any officer of this Honourable Court may be authorized to execute the sale-deed on behalf of the defendants Nos.1 and 5 and in favour of the plaintiffs to get the sale-deed registered and to receive remaining balance sale consideration of Rs,1,60,20,000 (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lac Twenty Thousand Only) from the plaintiffs as well as further directed the defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to get the challan obtained from the defendant No,6 pursuant to their letter, dated 4-12-2003 for payment of deficient amount of Rs,37,92,000.
(II) Judgment and decree for specific performance of sale agreement, dated 1-11-2003 in respect of Agricultural/Industrial/ Residential Land admeasuring 32 acres (16 acres each) out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji. Bin Qasim Town, Karachi having acquired the same by defendants Nos.2 to 4 in pursuance of letter bearing No,PS/MBR/(LU)/3350/92, dated 5-9-1992, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Nos.2 to 5 with direction to the defendants Nos.2 to 5 to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs and to get the same registered with the Sub-Registrar T-Division XIII, Karachi on receiving of balance sale consideration of Rs,3,24,40,000 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty For Lac Forty Thousand Only) from the plaintiffs and on failure the Nazir or any officer of this Honourable Court may be authorized to execute the sale-deed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and in favour of the plaintiffs to get the sale-deed registered and to receive remaining balance sale consideration of Rs,3,24,40,000 (Rupees three Crore Twenty Four Lac Forty Thousand Only) from the plaintiffs. Consequently, further be pleased to direct the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 to get the challan obtained from the defendant No, 6 pursuant to defendant No,6's letters, dated 22-11-2003 and 4-12-2003 for deficient amount of Rs,37,92,000 for 16 acres each total amounting to Rs .75 , 84 , 000 .
(III) Declare that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of Agricultural/Industrial/Residential Land admeasuring 48 acres (16 acres each) out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji, Bin Qasim Town, Karachi in part performance of the two sale agreements both, dated 1-11-2003 as well as in view of the Irrevocable General Power of Sub-Attorney at, dated 17-11-2003 and are enjoying possession thereof as its owners;
(IV) Declare that the plaintiffs are fully entitled for protection of section 41 read with section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
(V) Permanent injunction restraining all the defendants specially defendants Nos. 1 to 5, their servants, agents, successors, attorneys, assigns, administrators, Directors or any other person or persons claiming through or under them from:--
(a) Dispossessing the plaintiffs from their suit properties i,e, Agricultural/Industrial/Residential Land admeasuring 48 acres (16 acres each) out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji. Bin Qasim Town, Karachi in any manner;
(b) Interfering, disturbing the plaintiffs proposed construction or creating any hindrance by the defendants Nos. 6 to 10 on the behest of the defendants Nos. 1 to 5.
(c) Interfering or disturbing in any manner in construction work raising boundary walls and partition walls and or making any construction of any nature including but no limited to carving out residential-cum-commercial plots of land admeasuring 48 acres (16 acres each) our of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji, Bin Qasim town, Karachi, which is in exclusive physical possession of the plaintiffs in part performance of two sale agreements both, dated 1-11-2003;
(d) Restraining the defendants specially the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 from cancelling in any manner whatsoever two sale agreements both, dated 1-11-2003 as well as three irrevocable general sub- power of attorneys all, dated 17-11-2003 in respect of Agricultural/Industrial/Residential Land admeasuring 48 acres (16 acres each) out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji. Bin Qasim Town, Karachi in favour of the plaintiffs; ' Without Prejudice to the foregoing and/or in the alternative:-
(VI) Declare that plaintiffs are owners of Agricultural/ Industrial/Residential Land admeasuring 48 acres (16 acres each) out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji. Bin Qasim Town, Karachi in view of executing of irrevocable general power of sub-attorneys all, dated 17-11-2003 in lieu of part payment of Rs,65,00,000 and the plaintiffs were put into physical possession of the suits plots of land, the said irrevocable general power of sub-attorneys shall be treated as conveyance deed in view of Article 27 of the Schedule of Stamp Act which the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 shall be liable to get the same register in accordance with law.
(VII) Direct the defendant No,6 to prepare the challan of deficient amount of Rs,37,92,000 in respect of agricultural/Industrial/ Residential Land admeasuring 48 acres (16 acres each) total amounting to Rs,1,13,76,000 out of Naclass No,309 situated at Deh Joreji. Bin Qasim Town, Karachi and issue the same to the plaintiffs and permit the plaintiffs to deposit the aforesaid amounts with the defendant No,6 in order to make the loss good caused to the public exchequer;
(VIII) Consequential relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted;
(IX) Any other relief(s) which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may be passed;
(X) Cost of the suit.
3. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 duly filed their written statement, wherein the averments made by plaintiffs were denied. It was stated that there was no concluded contract between the plaintiffs and defendants. The land in question was owned by the said defendants, but the same was cancelled in terms of Ordinance III of 2001. Accordingly, the plaintiff No,1 was informed that the allotment of subject land had been cancelled in terms of the said Ordinance, as such no valid and binding contract could be executed. It was clear from the sale agreements that the parties had entered into contingent agreements dependent on regularization/ restoration of the allotments in favour of the answering defendants by the Government of Sindh. The plaintiff No,1 had undertaken to manage regularization/restoration of allotments of subject land in favour of the answering defendants after making payment of differential Malkano determined by the Government of Sindh.
However, the Government of Sindh had put an embargo upon regularization of the allotments and it was not known with certainty if the allotments of subject land would be regularized.
Consequently, the parties had mutually revoked the agreements, while absolving each other of the respective commitments, however the part payment made by plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4 was to be refunded. It was denied that the plaintiffs had ever been put in physical possession or constructive possession of the suit property. It was also denied that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit-land, since an agreement did not amount to sale of property. The plaintiffs actually knew that the allotment of land had been cancelled subject to regularization in terms of Ordinance III of 2001.
Although the plaintiffs, had consequently agreed upon revocation of the contract; but still they preferred to seek direction to the defendant No,6 for issuance of challan for additional Malkano within one month, and upon insistence of answering defendants had given consent for deposit of balance sale consideration with the Nazir of this Court. Despite efforts made by plaintiffs to obtain order for regularization, the defendant No,6 had not issued challan or had regularized the subject property, for want of policy decision by the Government of Sindh. The plaintiffs had further failed to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration in terms of the order, dated 22-12-2004 passed by this Court, and had become disentitled to decree for specific performance. It was also stated in the written-statement that no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs, and the sale agreements, dated 1-11-2003 had become incapable of performance due to uncertainty, and had been consequently cancelled through mutual consensus. The suit had been filed only as a result of change of mind and was tainted with mala fides. The plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief claimed in the suit, and the suit was liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
4. Defendant No,7 filed the written-statement, wherein he opposed the suit being not maintainable under the law, and no cause of action having accrued to the plaintiffs.
5. The written-statement was also filed by respondent/defendant No,9. While raising preliminary legal objections with regard to the maintability of suit, it was stated that the lease grant of suit- land was made in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and such entries existed in record of rights, however the said land came within the purview of Ordinance III of 2001, and the grants were not yet regularized.
6. The application vide C.M.A. No, 8765 of 2004 was filed on 13-12-2004 on behalf of plaintiffs, for directing the defendant No,6 to issue the challans in respect of the suit-land, in terms of section 4(2) of the Ordinance III of 2001, along with the prayer for permitting the plaintiffs to deposit the aforesaid deficit amounts in respect suit-land with the defendant No,6.
7. After filing of the suit the notices had been issued to defendants, whereafter on 22-12-2004 learned counsel for defendants Nos. 1 to 5 duly appeared and filed power for said defendants, which was taken on record. On the same date learned Single Judge passed the order as under:-- "Mr. Kh. Shamsul Islam, for Plaintiff.
' Mushtaq Memon, Advocate files power for defendants, which is taken on record.
' After hearing, it was found that there was no controversy between the parties as to the execution of the agreement entered into between them for sale and purchase of the property. The only controversy appears to be that the matter pertaining to the suit property is pending before Committee constituted under Ordinance HI of 2001. It is also informed that the Committee has decided the matter and the challan is ready and lying with the Board of Revenue but it has not been obtained by the defendant for its compliance.
' Mr. Memon is present along with his client and stated that let plaintiff approached the Board of Revenue for obtaining the challan and thereafter he may deposit the documented amount accordingly with the Board of Revenue or any other Agencies as mentioned in the challan. If every thing is in order the defendant No,6 is directed to prepare/issue the challan to the plaintiff or doing the needful as observed above. This is to be done by defendant No,6 and plaintiff within a period of one month. In the meantime, the plaintiffs to deposit balance sale consideration with the Nazir of this Court after deducting agreed additional Malakano.
' The matter to come up after a month."
8. Since the plaintiffs did not deposit the required amount in terms of the above order, dated 22-12- 2004, the defendants Nos.1 to 5 filed an application vide CMA No,1272 of 2005 with the prayer for dismissal of the suit due to non-compliance of the order, date 22-12-2004 and/or rejection of the plaint on account of failure of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contractual obligations.
9. The learned Single Judge vide order, dated 26-3-2007, condoned the delay in deposit of the above said amount by plaintiffs, and the C.M.A. No,8765 of '2004 as well as C.M.A. No,1272 of 2004 were dismissed. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved filed C.M.A. No,2452 of 2007 on 28-3-2007 under Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Read with section 114 C.P.C. For review/recall of the order, dated 26- 3-2007 only to the extent of dismissal of application bearing C.M.A. No,8765 of 2004, and also filed C.M.A. No, 4131 of 2007 under Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. On 25-4-2007, with the prayer for decreeing suit of the plaintiffs, in terms of the alleged admission by defendants Nos. 1 to 5 on 22-12-2004.
10. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order, dated 15-5-2007 reported the above C.M.A.
No,8765 of 2004 of plaintiffs to its original position of hearing and disposal on merits, whereas C.M.A. No, 4131 of 2007 under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Was dismissed. Hence, the impugned order, dated 15-5-2007 has been challenged only to the extent of dismissal of C.M.A. No, 4131 of 2007, by way of filing the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the sale agreements between the parties were admitted, and the only controversy, in the light of order, dated 22-12-2004, remained in respect of the matter pertaining to the suit property pending before the Committee constituted under Order III of 2001, and that the Committee had decided the matter and the challan was ready and lying with the Board of Revenue, but the same had not been obtained by the defendants for its compliance. By the same order, the defendant No,6 had been directed to prepare/issue the challan to plaintiffs for doing the needful, within a period of one month. In the meantime, the plaintiffs had also been directed to deposit the balance sale consideration with the Nazir of this Court after deducting the agreed additional Malkano. Learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that in the light of the said order, dated 22-12-2004, the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 had made an unqualified statement before the Court, whereby the sale agreements were admitted, as such the matter was fully covered by the provisions of Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C., and the suit was to be decreed on the basis of such admission. Although, the said defendants later took a divergent stand in their written-statement, but still they could not be absolved of the consequences of their unqualified admissions before the Court on 22-12-2004. Learned counsel, in supported of his above contention, placed reliance on the case law reported as Fazal Mahmood v.
Sardar Khan and others (PLD 1996 Karachi 475), H. Gharibullah v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum and others (1990 CLC 1609), Mr. Haseena v. Shafqat Malik (2001 SC 1224), Amir Ali v. Indus Entertainment (Pvt.)
Ltd. And others (2004 YLR 1576) and G.R. Syed v. Muhammad Afzal (2007 SCMR 433).
12. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the averments made by plaintiffs were specifically denied by respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 5, by way of filing the written-statement, which had been duly taken on record. No unqualified admission was made by defendants on 22-12-2004. Even from the order, dated 22-12-2004 it can be clearly deduced that no unequivocal admission whatsoever was made by the said defendants. As is evident from the case diary, dated 22-12-2004 learned counsel for said defendants had appeared for the first time in the suit had filed his power. It was only stated on behalf of the said defendants that the plaintiffs might approach the Board of Revenue for obtaining the challan and thereafter they may deposit the demanded amount accordingly with the Board of Revenue or any other agency as mentioned in the challan. Even the direction issued to defendant No,6 to prepare/issue the challan was conditional, as the words "if every thing is in order" were mentioned. Since the grant of subject land in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 5 had already been cancelled, as such the sale agreements between the parties were contingent in nature, which were obviously subject to regularization of the allotment of lands by defendant No,6. Since the allotment of lands already stood cancelled, as such no proper sale deed could be executed. It was yet to be determined through adducing evidence, as to why the challan was in issue by defendant No,6 or as to why the same could not be obtained by defendants Nos. 1 to 5 the land was till in possession of the defendants Nos.1 to 5; moreover on the basis of merely a sale agreement, no person derives any title of ownership. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 further contended that no admission was made official respondents, as such the entire suit could not have been decreed, as prayed for by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for respondents/ defendants Nos. 1 to 5 placed reliance on the case law reported as Messrs Gerry's International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Qatar Airways (PLD 2003 Karachi 253), Amir Bibi through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Khurshid and others (2003 SCMR 1261), Maconald Layton and Company Pakistan Ltd. v. Uzin Export-Import Foreign Trade Co. And others (1996 SCMR 696) and Kassamali Alibhoy v. Shaikh Abdul Sattar (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Karachi 75).
13. Learned Additional Advocate General, also holding brief for Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, learned counsel for respondents Nos.6 to 9, stated that the view point of said respondents has been brought forth through the written-statements filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 7 and 9, however the said respondents are pro forma parties.
14. We carefully heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the record.
Admittedly, the agreements of sale were executed between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 5, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the said property had been frozen by the Board of Revenue, and that the vendor was under liability to pay the differential amount of Malkano for getting the said property released from Board of Revenue. It was also mentioned in the agreements of sale that the required amount shall be paid directly by the vendors to the A Board of Revenue for the release of subject land after the issuance of challan from the Board of Revenue.
As such, it is clear that the parties had entered into a contingent agreement, and the subject land was not entirely free from encumbrances, and the same having been frozen by the Board of Revenue, was to be released after fulfilling certain conditions. It was specifically pleaded by respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 5, to which there was no effective rebuttal, that in the terms of Ordinance III of 2001, the allotment of subject land had been cancelled, and the subsequent regularization of such allotment had yet to be initiated.
15. It may be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of Ordinance III of 2001 Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance 2000, which may be reproduced as under:-- "(3) Cancellation of allotments, conversions and exchanges.-- ' Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any agreement or judgment or order of a Court but subject to other provisions of this Ordinance, the allotments, conversions or exchanges of urban State land obtained or granted for residential, commercial or industrial purposes at the rates lower than the market value in violation of law or ban from 1st January, 1985, shall stand cancelled."
' Section 5 of the same Ordinance reads as under:-- "(5) Regularization of allotment, conversions and exchanges.--.The allotments, conversions or exchanges made at the market value or in respect or which the amount determined under subsection (2) of section 4 has been paid shall be regularized."
' In the light of above provisions of Ordinance III of 2001, the allotment of subject land in the names of defendants Nos.1 to 5 already stood cancelled. The same allotments were yet to be regularized after fulfillment of certain conditions. Moreover, the fact that the same lands were frozen by the Board of Revenue finds mention in the agreements of sale. In the given situation, it is understandable that the above mentioned sale agreements were not executable.
16. In order to attract the provisions or Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C., the requirement of law seems to be that the admission should be unequivocal, clear, unconditional and unambiguous. In present case, the respective parties entered into an agreement which was a contingent agreement, being subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Moreover, the subject and already stood cancelled at the time of making the sale agreements. Hence it cannot be asserted that the respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 5 had ever made any unequivocal and unconditional admission.
The reference may be made to the case of Amir Bibi through legal heirs v. Muhammad Khurshid and others (2003 SCMR 1261), wherein it was laid down as under:-- "...In view of the provisions as contained in Order XII, rule 6 a Court is competent to dilate upon and decide the undisputed part of the case or whole of the case as per circumstances of each case but such power is not unfettered and the admission on the basis whereof a decree is sought must be specific, clear, unambiguous, categorical and definite. It is bounden duty of the Court to examine the plaint and written statement with diligent application of mind to ascertain the nature of admission. It would, however, be discretionary for the Court to accept or reject such application.
In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in East and West Steamship Co. v. Queens land Insurance Co. (PLD 1963 SC 663), Naseer Ahmad v. Asghar Ali (1992 SCMR 23000. This case has been examined on the touchstone of the criterion as mentioned hereinabove. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered view that the entire suit could not have been decreed as the claim of respondents has been controverted on various legal and factual grounds which can only be decided on the basis of evidence and not on mere admission."
17. In the case of Macdonald Layton and Company Pakistan Ltd. v. Uzin Export-Import Foreign Trade Co. And others (1996 SCMR 696) it was held as under:-- "...The admission being unqualified attracts Order XII, rule 6, C.P.C. Order XII, rule 6 C.P.C. Provides a summary and speedy remedy in cases where admission is made by the defendant in the pleadings or outside it, but in order to attract this provision it is necessary that the admission should be unequivocal, clear, unconditional and unambiguous."
18. In the case of Kassamali Alibhoy v. Shaikh Abdul Sattar (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Karachi 75) it is laid down as under:-- "...An admission in order to be made the basis of a decree under Order XII, rule 6, of the C.P.C., must be unqualified and unconditional. Therefore, when factual admission is accompanied with a qualification that the suit itself is not maintainable or that the claim suffers from a legal difficulty, it cannot be said that the admission is unqualified."
19. We have also gone through the case law cited at the bar by learned counsel for plaintiffs. The said case law is mainly on the point that in the light of Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Decree can be passed on the basis of clear and unambiguous admission of the defendants. There is no cavil to the proposition that an order under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C. Can certainly be passed, provided the admissions of defendants are specified, clear, unambiguous, categorical and definite. In our humble view the cited authorities with no help the case of appellants, as the qualifying conditions attached to such admissions, are not fulfilled in any manner, in present case.
20. It is significant to note that the respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 5, through their written- statement, had categorically denied the averments made in the plaint. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellants that on 22-12-2004 the admissions were made by defendants, is concerned, it may be significant to note that on the said date the learned counsel for said defendants had appeared for the first time and filed his Vakalatnama. Even though, an observation was made by learned Court that there was no controversy between the parties as to the execution of the agreement, and that the only controversy pertained to the matter pending before the Committee constituted under Ordinance III of 2001, the same will not construe an unequivocal admission on the part of said defendants, by any stretch of imagination. From the bare reading of the said order, dated 22-12-2004, it revealed that the parties had entered into contingent contract, which was primarily dependent upon restoration of the allotment of subject land by the Government of Sindh. Moreover, the written-statement was yet to be filed by the said defendants.
Indeed, later their written-statement was duly filed with specified denial of the averments made in plaint.
21. So far as .The contention of appellants with regard to the possession of land having been handed over to them, is concerned, the same has been categorically denied by the other side. It may suffice to say that such finding on this point cannot possibly be given at this stage, as the same would require the evidence to be recoded before arriving at any just conclusion. It may be pointed out that even otherwise, on the basis of sale agreement, no person derives any title or ownership. It may be relevant to reproduce section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as under:-- "(54) "Sale defined."---"Sale" is transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
' In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
' Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for .Sale.--A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
' It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
22. In order to decide the legal position of sale agreements having been entered into between both the parties, the provisions of section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872 may be referred to, which reads as under:- "(29) Agreements void for uncertainty.---Agreement, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void."
' In view of the above mentioned terms as contained in the sale agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, the same agreements may be termed as void and not capable of being executed/enforced. Even otherwise it was pleaded by respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 5 that both the parties, in view of the cancellation of allotment of subject land, and prevailing uncertainty regarding regularization of an allotment as well as regarding exact time-frame, had mutually revoked the contract, and the said defendants were prepared to refund part payment made by the plaintiffs; there was no question of handing over the physical or constructive possession of subject land to appellants, as an agreement did not amount to sale of property.
23. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to make any interference with the impugned order, dated 15-5-2007. Accordingly this appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed along with the listed applications. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.