Kuldip Singh, J.

1. The defendant No. 1 is in appeal against the judgment, decree, dated 1.3.2000, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 34-S/13 of 1997, reversing judgment and decree, dated 30.4.1997, passed by learned Sub Judge (1), Shimla in Case No. 15/1 of 96/90.

2. The facts as emerge from the plaint are that respondents No. 1, 2 filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement, dated 7.6.1989 and permanent prohibitory injunction against appellant-defendant No. 1. The respondent No. 3 was also impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. It has been alleged that husband of respondent No. 1 was tenant under father of appellant in Cottage No. 1, Bhargav Estate, Tutikandi. The father of appellant approached respondent No. 2 and offered to sell to respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 Cottage No. 2 comprised in khasra Nos. 549/513/342/1 and 546/334/1 and ultimately, it was agreed that respondent No. 1 would purchase Cottage No. 2, for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. In absence of permission, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) immediate execution and registration of the sale deed was n