' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25-5-1992 passed by the District Judge, Jhang whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent the judgment and decree, dated 27-2-1991 passed by the trial Court was reversed and the suit of the petitioner for specific performance of the contract was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 'petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell with regard to the land measuring 8 Kanals bearing Sq. No,42, Killa No,7 situated in the area of Mauza Loha Bhir, Tehsil and District Jhang. It was stated in the plaint that the respondent who is owner of the land has entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner in respect of suit land for a consideration of Rs,11,000 and a Yadasht was executed on 7-5-1989. It was also stated in the plaint that a sum of Rs,3,500 was paid by the petitioner at the time of execution of Yadasht and a period of one month was fixed for the completion of the sale. Further it was stated in the suit that the respondent subsequently received a sum of Rs,500 and then a sum of Rs,1,000 thus in all he received a sum of Rs,6,000. It was pleaded in the suit that the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell but the respondent was avoiding to execute the sale-deed on receipt of remaining sale price. It was further pleaded that the respondent wanted to alienate the suit land in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3. In the background of these circumstances the petitioner filed a suit. The suit was contested by the respondent. In the written statement the execution of the agreement was denied. Part payment of the consideration was also denied. From the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence and after completing the hearing, the trial Court decreed the suit. However, the petitioner was burdened to, pay special cost of Rs,2,000 to the defendants Nos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the respondent filed an appeal which was disposed of by the District Judge, Jhang vide his judgment and decree impugned through the present revision petition.
3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the agreement to sell, dated 7-5-1989 was fully proved and the observation of the First Appellate Court that Muhammad Hussain son of Abdul Qadir who appeared as P.W.2 before the trial Court is not the same Muhammad Hussain who was mentioned as one of the marginal witnesses in the agreement to sell, dated 7-5-1989 was incorrect. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the said Muhammad Hussain is one and the same person but the name of his father is Abdul Qadir Khan alias Hakim Khan. Further, it was argued that the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the suit property was not properly described in the form of Khata or Khatuni, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit land was defined and identified as per description given in the agreement to sell and further Halqa Patwari who appeared as P.W.1 with Register Haqdaran and Shajra Parcha proved the contention of the petitioner. It was also argued that the provision of section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act was not properly appreciated in the facts and circumstances of the case. None appeared on behalf of the respondent and he was proceeded ex parte.
4. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am of the view that the agreement to sell, dated 7-5-1989 is a document which was written on "Bandi".
Following the old tradition Bandi is a small book of record maintained by the individual in rural area of the Punjab. Perusal of the book which! Contained Exh.P.1 shows that an agreement to sell was written on 7-5-1989 for a sale of 8 Kanals of land for a consideration of Rs,11,000. The particulars of the land are not given in the agreement to sell. It is only mentioned that the respondent would transfer one acre of land towards east of Chah Mithu Wala. As regards the total area of the land is concerned, it is given as one acre and there is no certainty about the area as the other particulars to identify one acre of land are missing in the agreement to sell. Perusal of Exh.P.3 shows that respondent is an owner of 86 Kanals, 18 Marlas of land out of which 56 Kanals is under cultivation and 13 Kanals, 8 Marlas is Ghair Mumkin . In the absence of any Khasra or Killa number it was not possible to ascertain the land which was subject-matter of the sale. Keeping in view this infirmity in the agreement to sell the First Appellate Court has correctly relied on the provision of section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act and rightly held that the particulars of the land could not be found with reasonable certainty. It is difficult to lay down any general rule as to what is sufficient certainty in a contract but it can be safely stated that the certainty required must be reasonable one, being regard, to subject-matter of the contract. The principle is that description must be such as to enable the Court to determine with certainty the subject-matter of the contract. In the instant case in the absence of any particular of Killa number or any other defineable particulars, it was not possible for the Court to determine that which 8 Kanlas of land out of 86 Kanals, 8 Marlas was subject-matter of the agreement to sell. I, therefore, uphold the finding of the First Appellate Court on this score.
5. The other facts observed by the First Appellate Court like disparity between the name of the witness Muhammad Hussain son of ' Hakim Khan mentioned in the agreement Exh.P.1 and P.W.2 Muhammad Hussain son of Abdul Qadir and appraisal of the statement of Muhammad Ramzan P.W.4 and P.W.2 stating that the sale agreement was for two acres were properly appreciated by the First Appellate Court. This legal infirmities in the evidence of the petitioner makes the agreement to sell doubtful.
In view of my findings hereinbefore, I do not find any material irregularity in the appraisement of the evidence by the First Appellate! Court nor any jurisdictional defect or any other legal infirmity found in the judgment of the First Appellate Court. It was rightly held by the First Appellate Court that the agreement to sell lacks the certainty and was not enforceable in view of the principle enshrined under section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act and furthermore it was rightly held that the agreement to sell was not proved. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.