ORDER :

1. This civil first appeal under section 96 CPC filed by the appellant-defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the judgment dated 24.03.2008 and decree dated 22.04.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kotputali, District Jaipur whereby the learned court below decreed the suit of specific performance of agreement in favour of the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff').

2. Brief facts of the appeal are that plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.01.2006 before the learned court below in which plaintiff averred that the original defendant had executed an agreement to sell with regard to land of Khasra No. 61/0.01, 62/0.05, 63/6.49, total Kita 3 Rakba 6.55 situated at Mauza Pachudala Tehsil Kotputali at the rate of Rs.2.20 lacs per bigha on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. It was also averred that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, Rs.7 lacs were given in advance to the original defendant and remaining amount was to be paid upto 30.05.2006. It was also averred that in the agreement to sell it was specifically mentioned that if the defendant fails to get the registry done, he will pay twice the advance amount i.e. Rs.14 lacs to the plaintiff. It was also averred that due to holiday on 30.05.2006 on account of Maharana Pratap Jayanti, plaintiff informed the defendant and went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Kotputali on 31.05.2006 at 11:00 AM for performing the agreement to sell but defendant did not appear for getting the land registered in the name of plaintiff.

3. Defendant filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the plaintiff. It was specifically averred that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part and she never paid the remaining amount till 30.05.2006 and she did not present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 31.05.2006. Defendant also stated in his written statement that he had purchased four stamps of Rs.1,000/- each for registration of sale deed but since the plaintiff was not willing to make payment of the remaining amount, therefore, sale deed could not be registered.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed 6 issues:

(i) Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to pay remaining amount as per conditions of agreement dated 12.01.2006 but due to mischief of defendant, he had not taken remaining amount as per condition of agreement and denied to register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff with regard to land of Khasra No. 61/0.01, 62/0.05, 63/6.49, total Kita 3 Rakba 6.55.

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance of contract dated 12.01.2006 by paying remaining amount and get sell deed registered in favour of her. Alternatively, if not possible then entitled to get twice the amount Rs.7 lacs with interest @ 12% per annum.

(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get injunction as per Para 5 and 13 of the plaint and also entitled to get permanent injunction not to sale the land in question to third person as per agreement dated 12.01.2006.

(iv) Whether on account of holiday on 30.05.2006, defendant had purchased the stamps on next day and typed the sale deed on it as per agreement. The said stamps Nos.926 to 929 were in possession of plaintiff but she had not paid remaining amount, so, on account of default no cause of action accrued to her and suit be dismissed.

(v) Whether suit is insufficiently stamped.

(vi) Relief.

5. Plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got examined PW2- Balram. Defendant examined as DW1-Phularam and got examined DW2-Mahendra, DW3-Chiranji Lal, DW4-Ranjeet Kumar Bansal.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that learned court