JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., dated 3.7.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 65-K/2001.

2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for the convenience sake), filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). According to the plaintiff, the defendant entered into agreement to sell the whole land comprised in khata No. 104, khatauni No. 165, 166, khasra Nos. 371, 372, 373, 373/1, 373/2, 374, kita-6, area measuring 202 sq. meters, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1990-91, situated in Mohal Bohan, Mauza Bohan, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. for consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. The defendant had received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money. The defendant has agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 10.7.1993. The defendant had undertaken to get the consent of his brother also to sell his share. It was also agreed that in case his brother refused to execute the sale deed in respect of his share, then the defendant would sell his share in the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs. 15,000/- which had already been received by him. The plaintiff was always willing to perform his part of agreement and asked the defendant to transfer his share in the land by a sale deed, but he put off on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff has served two legal notices dated 12.7.1993 and 29.3.1994, asking him to execute the sale deed, however, the defendant has not even cared to reply those notices.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant has admitted that the agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant. He also admitted that he had received Rs. 15,000/-. He admitted that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.7.1993. According to him, he has posted two letters to the plaintiff on 14.6.1993 and 16.8.1993 in which he had asked the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed. He denied that the possession of the suit land was ever handed over to the plaintiff rather the land remained in the joint possession of defendant and his brother. The issues were framed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. 2, Dehra on 10.3.2000. The learned Sub Judge, decreed the suit of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 23.2.2001. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2001, preferred appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge(I), Kangra. The learned Addl. District Judge(I), Kangra dismissed the same on 3.7.2003. Hence, this regular second appeal.

4. This regular second appeal was admitted by this Court on 13.7.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Courts below have mis-interpreted mis-read and mis-construed Agreement for sale exhibit PW-1/A?

2. Whether in view of the specific Agreement between the Seller and Purchaser in Exhibit PW-1/A, that if seller and his brother Shri Krishan Gopal, evade or refuse to execute sale-deed, therefore, respondent shall be entitled to get double of the amount as received by him, therefore, decree for specific performance could not have been passed?”

5. Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts’ below have mis-read and misconstrued the agreement for sale Ext. PW-1/A dated 10.7.1993. He also argued that the decree of performance could not have been passed. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts’ below.

6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully.

7. Since the substantial questions of law are inter-related, hence in order to avoid repetition of evidence, these were taken up togeth