This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of specific performance and is only entitled to decree of recovery of money paid under the agreement of sale. In fact, the defendant has also filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the Courts below regarding the proof of execution of the agreement of sale and payment of consideration under the agreement of sale.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit is the non-agricultural land comprised in CTS No.2093/B measuring 2889.10 sq. mtrs. situated in Ayodhya Nagar within the limits of Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation in CTS Ward No.5. Prior to its conversion, the schedule property was a part of the southern portion of R.S.No.16 measuring 29 guntas. For short, the said property is referred to as 'the schedule property'.

4. Defendant is the owner of agricultural land bearing schedule property. He was interested to sell the schedule property and the plaintiff was willing to purchase the same. The terms of sale and purchase of the schedule land was settled between the parties, the price was fixed at Rs.8,000/-. On 07.02.1974. The defendant executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Under the agreement of sale, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid as earnest money in cash. On the date of execution of the agreement of sale, on receipt of Rs.4,000/-, defendant was to hand-over the physical possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to accept the balance consideration of Rs.4,000/-from the plaintiff at the time of executing the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar, Hubli. On 10.06.1974, the defendant received a sum of Rs.2,000/-in cash from the plaintiff in terms of the agreement of sale. The said receipt of Rs.2,000/-was duly acknowledged in the very agreement itself. The remaining balance of Rs.2,000/-was received by the defendant on 08.12.1974 which is also duly acknowledgement by the defendant in the agreement of sale itself.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he spent huge amount for exempting the said land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. He also got the land converted from agricultural land into non-agricultural use. The plaintiff has made two plots in the suit property after complying with the legal formalities. Defendant has given his consent for getting the land converted and making plots. The plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Defendant filed a voluntary statement before the CTS Authorities on 21.12.1974. Both the plaintiff and defendants have filed statement before the CTS Authorities on 03.03.1975. Accordingly, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the CTS records as 'E'. The defendant has agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property as and when the plaintiff calls upon him to do so. The defendant has nothing to receive from the plaintiff towards sale consideration. The only part that remains to be performed by the defendant is to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar, Hubli and convey absolute sale deed to him. The plaintiff was ready to pay stamp duty and registration charges relating to completion and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff has been ever- ready and willing and even now ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He is ready to get the sale deed executed from the defendant in respect of the schedule property. The plaintiff has performed his part of the contract. The plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale and complete the sale transaction. Defendant went on postponing performing his part of contract. The Defendant is i