The appellant's voluntary agreement, the respondent's readiness to perform, and the invalidity of the transfer to other parties were central to the court's decision.

( 1 ) DALIP Singh, the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") was the owner of land measuring 69 kanals 10 marlas situated in the area of Village Bichhnari, District Gohana in the State of Haryana. He entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land on 25-5-1987 with Mehar Singh Rathee, plaintiff-Respondent 1 (for short "respondent 1") for a consideration of Rs 1,70,000. As per agreement the sale deed was to be executed on or before 25-7-1987. The appellant was required to obtain clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department for the sale of the suit land and also to get mutation of the land sanctioned in his favour before the execution of the sale deed because he had received the land through a civil court decree in Civil Suit No. 122 dated 19-3-1984 titled Dalip v. Sarti. The date for execution of the sale deed was extended by mutual agreement on 18-7-1987 to 25-8-1987.

( 2 ) IT came to the knowledge of Respondent 1 that the appellant was trying to sell the property to Respondents 2 to 4. He issued registered A/d notices dated 17-8-1987, 19-8-1987, 20-8-1987 and telegram dated 19-8-1987 calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell. The appellant did not give any reply to the same nor did he give any information as to whether he had obtained the income tax clearance certificate and got sanctioned the mutation in his name. On 24-8-1987 it came to the knowledge of Respondent 1 that the appellant had purchased three stamp papers of the value of Rs 3250, Rs 3250 and Rs 6000 for selling the land to Respondents 2 to 4. The appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 25-8-1987 along with balance consideration for execution of the sale deed but the appellant did not come to execute the said sale deed.

( 3 ) APPREHENDING that the appellant may sell the land to someone else, Respondent 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Gohana praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from selling the property to any other person and for mandatory injunction directing him to execute the sale deed in his favour only.

( 4 ) ON 23-11-1987 Respondent 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 25-5-1987 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat. On 10-12-1987 Respondent 1 withdrew the suit for permanent injunction filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Gohana as he had already filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn and passed the following order:

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has made his statement that he withdraws his suit as the party has filed the suit for specific performance at Sonepat. In view of his statement, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

( 6 ) ON 8-3-1988 the appellant filed a written statement in the suit for specific performance contending inter alia that the Court of Senior Sub-Judge at Sonepat did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. On 20-3-1989 the Court at Sonepat returned the plaint to Respondent 1 for presentation before the appropriate court having jurisdiction. Immediately after the return of the plaint Respondent 1 presented the plaint in the Court of additional Civil Judge, Gohana on 21-3-1989.

( 7 ) THE suit land was sold by the appellant to Respondents 2 to 4 through a registered sale deed on 22-3-1988. Respondent 1 moved an application for amendment of the plaint seeking impleadment of Respondents 2 to 4 and the sons and daughters of the appellant as Respondents 5 to 10 being necessary parties and also seeking amendment in the plaint including the relief clause. Additional prayer for declaration that the sale deed dated 22-3-1988 executed in favour of Respondents 2 to 4 was null and void and not binding on him was made.

( 8 ) UPON notice the appellant entered appearance and contested the suit. He