The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Courts at Shimla had jurisdiction over the specific performance suit, and time was not the essence of the agreement. The court also emphasized the importance of the terms of the agreement in determining the rights and obligations of the parties.

R.L. Khurana, J.—The appellant before this Court was defendant No. 3, while respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff and respondents No. 2 to 4 were the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4, respectively, before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 156/1 of 1991. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are being referred to accordingly hereinafter.

2. Defendant No. 3 is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1997 of the learned District Judge, Shimla, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1992 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (3), Shimla.

3. The defendants No.l to 4 and one Smt. Sumitri Devi (mother of defendant No. 3) representing themselves to be the owners and in possession of the house property known as "Anwar Cottage" Lower Kaithu, Shimla alongwith servant quarter and the land underneath comprising of khasra No. 100, Khata/Khatoni No. 227/390 measuring 11 Biswas (as detailed in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66). On 1.10.1982 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the said property, hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute, to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 72,000. A sum of Rs. 15,000 as advance was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants and Smt. Savitri Devi by way of three cheques as under:— (a) Cheque No. 4/27-619755 dated 13.4.1982 for Rs. 5,000 in favour of defendant No. 4; (b) Cheque No. 4/27-619756 dated 13.4.1982 for Rs. 5,000 in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi; and (c) Cheque No. 4/27-619757 dated 13.4.1982 for Rs. 5,000 in favour of defendant No. 1.

4. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 57,000 was agreed to be paid , by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Shimla. Besides, other stipulations, the agreement to sell dated 1.10.1982 (Ex. PW3/A) stipulated: (i) The defendants were to execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within six months from the date of the sanction of mutation in their favour in respect of the property in dispute; (ii) The plaintiff was bound to get the sale deed registered within a period of two months from the date of service of notice on him by the defendants calling upon him to get the sale deed registered; (iii) In the event of the plaintiffs failure to get the sale deed executed and registered within the period stipulated under (ii) above, the advance of Rs. 15,000 paid would stand forfeited; (iv) In the event of defendants failure to execute the sale deed within the period prescribed under (i) above they would be liable to pay to the plaintiff double the amount of advance of Rs. 15,000. Besides, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the agreement enforced through Court of law.

5. The mutation in respect of the property in dispute was sanctioned in favour of the defendants on 30.11.1984. No intimation regarding the sanctioning of mutation was given by the defendants to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff on coming to know about the sanctioning of mutation, repeatedly called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour in terms of the agreement (Ex. PW3/A). However, the defendants failed and refused to perform their part of the agreement. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for the specific performance of the agreement (Ex. PW3/A) and for possession of the property in dispute.

6. The suit was resisted and contested by defendant No. 3 alone. Defendant No. 4 did not put in appearance in spite of service. Hence he was proceeded against ex parte. Defendant No. 2 on 26.12.1986 put in appearance for self and as attorney for defendant No. 1 and made a statement that he had no objection to the suit for specific performance being decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Be it stated that Smt. Sumitri Devi abovenamed and the mother of defendant No. 3 had died before the suit and was succeeded by defendant No. 3 alone. Therefore, she was not impleaded as party to the suit. Her interest and estate was being represented by defendant No.3.

8. Defen