Bhandari, J.—This is a civil first appeal by the plaintiff Jaswant Singh against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil judge, Ganganagar dated the 23rd February, 1955 in a suit for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for damages.

2. The case of the plaintiff appellant is that on the 9th of March, 1954, the defendant respondent agreed to sell his land, Chak 7 KK in Tehsil Padampura measuring 20 bighas for Rs. 6800/- and executed an agreement Ex. 1 after taking Rs 500/- as earnest money. It was also provided in the agreement that if the defendant failes to sell the land, he shell pay Rs. 2000/- as damages. On the failure of the defendant to carry out the terms of the agreement the plaintiff sued for specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- as damages as also the earnest money. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff. He pleaded that there was a talk of giving the disputed land on lease to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000/- per year and there was agreement for the sale to the land. As the defendant was on old man, very simple and illiterate, the plaintiff got the the thumb impression of the defendant on a document which he described as lease deed. He denied that he had executed any agreement to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff. He further denied that he was liable to pay any damages. The learned Judge of the trial court framed several issues. Issue No. 5 related to the execution of the agreement. The learned Judge held that the agreement Ex. 1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He further held that according to agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to recover only damages from the defendant, and he assessed the amount of damages at Rs. 1000/- the trial court decreed the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500/- of which Rs. 5,00/- were the money and Rs. 1,000/- the amount of damages.

3. The plaintiff has come in appeal and has prayed that the suit for specific Performance of contract of sale may be decreed or in the alternative without prejudice to that prayer, the amount of damages may be enhanced by Rs. 1,000/-. The main argument addressed on behalf of the plaintiff is that the breach of contract to transfer the land by the defendant cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money and that such contract should be ordered to specifically enforced even though a sum has been mentioned in it as the amount to be paid in case of its breach. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that the trial court has taken the correct view on the interpretation of Ex. 1 under which the plaintiff can claim only damage and cannot claim specific performance.

4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of Ex. 1 starts by saying that the executant, i.e. the defendant, having agreed to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff further agrees to the terms mentioned thereafter. Then there are mentioned the following five conditions. Condition no. 1 states that Rs. 500/- had been received as earnest money out of the sale price of Rs. 6,800/- Sanction for the sale of the land shall be obtained by the 15th of June 1954 and the rest of the sale price i.e. Rs. 6300/- would be received before the Registrar. Condition no. 2 relates to the expenses of registration and sanction. Condition no. 3 mentions that if the sanction is not received by the 15th of June, 1954, the seller will pay Rs. 4000/- and will obtain the land and will himself cultivate the land and take produce of the land. After the sanction has been received within one month thereof, purchaser shall get the sale deed registered and shall recover Rs. 2,300/- before the Registrar.

5. Condition no. 4 is important. It mentions that if the purchaser does not obtain the sanction or even after the sanction, does not get the sale deed registered in favour of the seller by the 15th of June, 1954 or sells or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document