JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal is directed against judgment, decree dated 16.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1999 affirming judgment, decree dated 7.8.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu in Civil Suit No. 106/98/95. Some of the parties have died, their legal representatives have been brought on record. In this judgment, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants. 2. The facts in brief are that Khemu predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was granted land measuring 3.6.0 bighas as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88 situated in Phati Vashishat, Tehsil Kullu in nautor by the Government. Khemu on 5.6.1981 agreed to sell to plaintiff land measuring 0-6-0 bighas (for short suit land) out of the land allotted to him by the Government for Rs. 2200/- which was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement. The suit land was nautor and was not transferable before the expiry of 15 years from the date of the sanction of nautor, Khemu had agreed to execute sale deed of the suit land on or before 6.6.1995. Khemu died before the stipulated date, he could not perform his part of the contract and his estate including suit land devolved upon the defendants, who are legally bound to execute the sale deed as per the agreement. 3. The further case of the plaintiff is that defendants failed to perform their part of the contract despite notice dated 8.5.1995. The plaintiff was and is throughout ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract. 4. The suit was contested by defendants other than defendant No.2 by filing written statement. The preliminary objections of limitation, valuation, maintainability were taken. On merits, agreement with Khemu was denied. The suit land was nautor land and was not transferable for 20 years. Khemu was otherwise not competent to execute the alleged agreement. It was denied that Rs. 2200/- were paid by the plaintiff to Khemu under the agreement. There was no necessity for Khemu to sell the suit land for a meager amount of Rs. 2200/-. It was pleaded that defendants had raised orchard over the suit land having value not less than Rs. 4,00,000/-. The notice dated 8.5.1995 was not denied. The pleas of locus-standi and cause of action were also taken. 5. There was no necessity for Khemu to sell the suit land for a meager amount of Rs. 2200/-. It was pleaded that defendants had raised orchard over the suit land having value not less than Rs. 4,00,000/-. The notice dated 8.5.1995 was not denied. The pleas of locus-standi and cause of action were also taken. 5. The replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of defendants Sh. Khimu executed an agreement to sell dt. 5.6.1981 in respect of the suit land and received full consideration in lieu thereof as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession by way of specific performance of contract as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Relief. The issues No. 1 and 5 were answered in affirmative and issues No. 2, 3 and 4 in negative and the suit was dismissed on 7.8.1999. The plaintiff filed appeal which was dismissed by learned District Judge on 16.11.2000. Hence, second appeal by the plaintiff, who died during the pendency of second appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the notification No. Rev.2A(3)11/77 dated 11.9.1980 imposing condition of twenty years for not selling the Nautor land/grant has retrospective effect and is applicable to the present matter? 2. Whether the vendor could have taken the plea of defective title after he has agreed in agreement to sell the suit land? 3. Whether the observation made by the learned lower appellate Court (in para 14 and 15 of the judgment) regarding the limitation are also wrong whereas, the suit was filed within time as has been held by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 3. Whether the observation made by the learned lower appellate Court (in para 14 and 15 of the judgment) regarding the limitation are also wrong whereas, the suit was filed within time as has been held by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the legal representatives of the plaintiff that the land was granted to Khemu, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants on 28.1.1977, the restriction of sale of 20 years imposed by notification dated 11.9.1980 is not applicable to the allotment of land made to Khemu Ram on 28.1.1977. The notification dated 11.9.1980 has no retrospective effect. The defendants cannot take the plea that Khemu Ram could not agree to transfer the land in terms of agreement Ex.PW-1/A. The suit is within limitation in terms of agreement Ex.PW-1/A. The learned counsel for the defendants has supported the impugned judgment, decree. The two courts below have already dismissed the suit. The legal representatives of plaintiff are not entitled to specific performance of agreement Ex.PW-1/A dated 5.6.1981 now after more than 30 years. 7. The above substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are taken up collectively for determination. The two Courts below have held that Khemu had executed agreement dated 5.6.1981 Ex.PW-1/A in favour of Ram Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on receiving full consideration Rs. 2200/-. The Courts below however took the view that the agreement dated 5.6.1981 was in violation of Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 (for short ‘Scheme’ unless context is otherwise) which prohibits the transfer of the land within a period of 20 years. In view of notification dated 11.9.1980 the plaintiff was held not entitled to relief of specific performance on the basis of the agreement Ex.PW-1/A. 8. In the remarks column of jamabandi 1987-88 Ex.PW-1/H, it has been stated that land measuring 3-6 bighas has been allotted to Khemu vide patta No. 2430/T dated 28.1.1977 and mutation No. 1731 has been attested on 28.8.1979. The restriction of 20 years of transfer in Rule 11 of the Scheme was introduced vide notification dated 11.9.1980. There is nothing on record to show that restriction of 20 years on transfer vide notification dated 11.9.1980 in Rule 11 of the Scheme is retrospective. The restriction of 20 years of transfer in Rule 11 of the Scheme was introduced vide notification dated 11.9.1980. There is nothing on record to show that restriction of 20 years on transfer vide notification dated 11.9.1980 in Rule 11 of the Scheme is retrospective. In Parshotam and others vs. State of H.P. and others 1990 (2) Sim. L.C. 206, the notification dated 9.12.1987 putting embargo against alienation of 20 years instead of 10 years in a scheme framed under Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 was before the Court for consideration. It was held that the bar against alienation for a period of 10 years was a covenant running with the land and any subsequent change in the policy of the Government cannot affect the concluded transactions. 9. In the present case the notification dated 11.9.1980 putting restriction of 20 years in Rule 11 of the Scheme is after the allotment of land in favour of Khemu. Therefore, notification dated 11.9.1980 restricting transfer of land for 20 years in Rule 11 would not apply to transfer of the suit land by Khemu. The allotment of land will be governed by the provision in force at the time of allotment of land in favour of Khemu. There was no defect in the title of Khemu. The plea of defendants that in view of notification dated 11.9.1980 Khemu could not transfer suit land for 20 years has no force. 10. The matter does not end here. The Rule 11 also provides that the land governed under the scheme shall not be subjected to fragmentation by way of partition, transfer or by any other mean. The scheme is meant for landless person and other eligible persons. The intention of the allotment is to help such persons and, therefore, Rule 11 further provides that the land shall not be subjected to fragmentation by partition, transfer or by any other mean. 11. In the plaint, the suit land has been described as land measuring 0-6-0 bigha out of total land measuring 3-6-0 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 3387 and 3388. In agreement Ex.PW-1/A, 0-6-0 biswas land has been described as 6/29th share out of land measuring 1-9 bighas. In jamabandi Ex.PW-1/H Khasra No. 3388 has been shown measuring 1-9 bighas. 11. In the plaint, the suit land has been described as land measuring 0-6-0 bigha out of total land measuring 3-6-0 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 3387 and 3388. In agreement Ex.PW-1/A, 0-6-0 biswas land has been described as 6/29th share out of land measuring 1-9 bighas. In jamabandi Ex.PW-1/H Khasra No. 3388 has been shown measuring 1-9 bighas. It means land measuring 6 biswas out of khasra No. 3388 was agreed to be sold by Khemu as per agreement Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Ram Chand has stated that he had purchased two bighas land on 8.4.1969 and constructed a house thereon and raised orchard. Khemu Ram was allotted land and house constructed by him was found in the possession of persons from whom he purchased the land, but six biswas of land was found during demarcation in the nautor land of Khemu Ram, therefore, agreement dated 5.6.1981 Ex.PW-1/A was executed. 12. DW-1 Nathu Ram has admitted the suggestion of plaintiff that over six biswas of land plaintiff has constructed his house. In other words, according to plaintiff specific six biswas of land of Khemu was in his possession over which he had constructed his house. The agreement according to plaintiff was executed with Khemu Ram to purchase that part of the land which was in possession of plaintiff. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff has not identified specific land which according to him was under his house. Khemu Ram was allotted land measuring 3-6 bighas comprising Khasra No. 3387 and Khasra No. 3388. In view of absence of proper identification of six biswas land under the house of plaintiff in the plaint or in the agreement Ex.PW-1/A, no decree for specific performance of said land can be passed. 13. The agreement was executed on 5.6.1981 more than 31 years ago. In Kanshi Ram vs. Om Prakash Jawal and others AIR 1996 SC 2150 , it has been held that it is true that the rise in prices of the property during the pendency of the suit may not be the sole consideration for refusing to decree the suit for specific performance. But it is equally settled law that granting decree for specific performance of a contract of immovable property is not automatic. It is one of discretion to be exercised on sound principles. But it is equally settled law that granting decree for specific performance of a contract of immovable property is not automatic. It is one of discretion to be exercised on sound principles. When the Court gets into equity jurisdiction, it would be guided by justice, equity, good conscience and fairness to both the parties. The Courts would have been well justified in granting alternative decree for damages, instead of ordering specific performance which would be unrealistic and unfair. 14. In K.Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 77 , it has been held court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. In V. Pechimuthu vs. Gowrammal (2001) 7 SCC 617 , it has been held where the Court is considering whether or not to grant a decree for specific performance for the first time, the rise in the price of the land agreed to be conveyed may be a relevant factor in denying the relief of specific performance. In Manohar Lal alias Manohar Singh vs. Maya (2003) 9 SCC 478 , the agreement to sell was of the year 1987, the High Court instead of passing decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit land, decreed the suit for refund of earnest money with reasonable interest. The Supreme Court approved the judgment of the High Court. 15. The two Courts below declined to grant specific performance. The agreement was executed more than 31 years ago. The land under the house of the plaintiff for which the agreement was executed has not been properly identified either in the agreement or in the plaint, so as to pin-point or identify the said land. In is common knowledge that prices of the land have increased many folds. In these circumstances, it will not be equitable to grant decree of specific performance of the land. The possibility cannot be ruled out that specific performance of the decree will lead to multiplicity of litigation between the parties inasmuch as at the most only a share can be transferred in favour of legal representatives of the plaintiffs equal to six biswas from Khasra No.3388 for want of proper identification of the land. The possibility cannot be ruled out that specific performance of the decree will lead to multiplicity of litigation between the parties inasmuch as at the most only a share can be transferred in favour of legal representatives of the plaintiffs equal to six biswas from Khasra No.3388 for want of proper identification of the land. In these circumstances, the aforesaid substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly. 16. The substantial question of law No.3 in fact does not emerge from the material on record. The trial Court has held the suit within limitation. The first appellate Court has observed generally that limitation for filing a suit for specific performance is three years. The first appellate Court has not set-aside the findings of trial Court on issue No.3 nor it has been held that the suit was time barred. The substantial question of law No.3 is decided accordingly. 17. Ram Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had paid Rs. 2200/- to Khemu, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on 5.6.1981. It is not the case of the respondents that they have not succeeded to the estate of Khemu. In these circumstances, the respondents jointly and severally are liable to refund Rs. 2200/- alongwith 6% interest to appellants from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the whole amount alongwith costs throughout and, therefore, to this extent, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be modified. 8. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed, judgment and decree dated 16.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1999 affirming judgment, decree dated 7.8.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu in Civil Suit No. 106/98/95 are set-aside. A decree of Rs. 2200/- is passed in favour of appellants and against respondents jointly and severally alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit till realisation alongwith costs throughout.