( 1 ) THE plaintiff instituted this suit for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale in respect of the property mentioned in the plaint. There are consequential reliefs prayed for, namely a direction on the defendant to execute and register the conveyance in respect of the property, a direction on the Registrar to settle or execute the conveyance if necessary.

( 2 ) THE alternative prayers are a decree for Rs. 3,00,001 with interest in terms of paragraph 18 of the plaint, and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in terms of paragraph 19 of the plaint, and if necessary an enquiry as to the amount due. The plaintiff has also asked for a declaration that the property stands charged for the due payment of the sum of Rs. 3,00,000.

( 3 ) THE allegations in the plaint are as follows. First, that between 30 April 1963 and 6 May 1963 it was agreed by and between the parties through Ramkisanji Dhanuka that the defendant would sell to the plaintiff and the plaintiff would purchase from the defendant the property mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint free from all encumbrances at or for the price or consideration of Rs. 10,75,000. Secondly, that the defendant would make out a good and marketable title to the said property. Thirdly, that the plaintiff would advance a sum of Rs. 25,001 to the defendant towards or on account of earnest money and in part payment of the agreed purchase price or consideration. Fourthly, that the balance sum of Rs. 10,49,999 would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of the execution of the conveyance. Fifthly, that every effort would be made by the parties to complete the transaction by 16 June, 1963, but time would not be treated as essence of the contract. Sixthly, that the conveyance would be either in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee or nominees.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the agreement was arrived at orally and in the making of the agreement the plaintiff was represented by his agent, Safar Ali, and the defendant by the agents, Tola Ram Jalan and Bajrang Prosad Jalan. In the plaint the name is given as Bajrang Prosad Jalan, out at the trial it appeared that the real name was Bajrang Prosad Jalan. The plaintiff further alleges that some of the terms of the agreement alleged will appear from the correspondence, namely letters dated 29 April, 1963. 30 April 1963, 6 May, 1963, 6 June 1963, alleged in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The plaintiff paid Rs. 25,001 as earnest money in terms of the said agreement.

( 5 ) THE further allegations are that in the month of Tune 1963 the plaintiff through his solicitor delivered requisition on title and on 20 June 1963 the defendant's solicitor sent to, the plaintiff's solicitor answers to the requisition. It is the plaintiff's case in the plaint that the defendant or his solicitor did not send the original conveyance in favour of the defendant or necessary documents authorising the sale. The defendant's solicitor on or about 28 June 1963 sent to the plaintiff's solicitor copy of the original conveyance in respect of the property forming subject matter of this suit, as also a letter dated 28 November 1962 written on behalf of the defendant to the Corporation of Calcutta for mutation of the name of the defendant as the owner of the property. The plaintiff alleges that on or about 28 June 1968 the defendant through his solicitor promised to furnish the plaintiffs solicitor with resolution gassed by the defendant authorising and confirming the sale of the property forming subject-matter of this suit.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff alleges that by mutual consent and agreement of the parties time for completion of the transaction was extended from time to time and on or about 29 July 1963 there was an extension till 24 August 1963. The plaintiff alleges that the plaintiffs solicitor sent the draft conveyance to the defendant's solicitor some time on 5-8-1963. On or about 17-8-1963 the defendants's solicitor returned to the plaintiff's s