The mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage or hardship.

1. A suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the agreement dated 12-6-1966 (Exhibit P3) was decreed in his favour and against the defendant-appellant by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgement and decree dated 11-6-1976 and a decree for possession of one-half share of the property described as plot No. 954 measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 7411, 19380/7412, 17300/7424, 17301/7420 and 7409 min situated near Sewa Sadan, Neela Mahal, Jalandhar City, was passed in his favour. The appellant was directed to execute sufficient instrument of transfer in favour of respondent No. 1 and to deliver possession of the said one-half share of the land to respondent No. 1 on payment by the latter of a sum of Rs. 7590.92 P. An appeal filed by the appellant against the aforesaid judgement and decree failed and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgement and decree dated 28-5-1977. Still being aggrieved, he has filed the present appeal.

2. The facts in brief as alleged in the plaint are that the appellant purchased the aforesaid plot, which was described to measure 7 Kanals 7 Marlas, for a sum of Rs. 20,550.00 in open auction on 7-6-1966 for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sunder Singh respondent No. 2. The appellant entered into an agreement (Exhibit P3) with the respondents on 12-6-1966 to sell the said piece of land in equal share to them for a sum of Rs. 21,000. At the time of the auction of the land they deposited through the appellant vide receipt dated 8-6-1966 a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 with the Rehabilitation Department. A sum of Rs. 500.00 was paid to him by the respondents at the time of execution of the agreement as earnest money. A sum of Rs. 3,110.00 was to be paid to the Department in order to make up the one fifth of the auction amount of Rs. 20,550.00 . This amount was to be deposited by the respondents through the appellant on receipt of an intimation to that effect from the appellant after he had received a like intimation from the Rehabilitation Department. After acceptance of the bid the respondents were to deposit through the appellant the balance 4/5th of the price i.e. Rs. 16,440.00 for which the appellant was to give an intimation to them in writing well in advance. The possession of the land was deemed to be that of the respondents. Stamp and registration expenses were also to be borne by them. The appellant was to execute a power of attorney in favour of the respondents with an authority to sell and to execute the sale deed in favour of any other person as the respondents so chose. They would be entitled to get any number of sale deeds executed either in their favour or in favour of any other person or persons at their expense. In case of default on the part of the appellant, they had a right to get the agreement for sale specifically enforced through a court of law. They had also the option to claim the sum of Rs. 21,000.00 as damages besides Rs. 21,000.00 paid as sale consideration to the appellant i.e. total amounting to Rs. 42,000.00 . In case of default on the part of the respondents, the appellant had no right to forfeit any amount paid to him or to the Government by the respondents.

3. In pursuance of the agreement (Exhibit P3) the respondents deposited Rs. 3,110.00 on 14-6-1966 with the Rehabilitation Department through the appellant vide Treasury Challan, copy of which is Exhibit LCW/1. The appellant in turn executed a power of attorney dated 3-8-1966 in favour of respondent No. 1 and one Gulab Singh a nominee of respondent No. 2 to whom, it appears, respondent No. 2 had agreed to sell his share of the land. Both these attorneys were authorised individually and jointly to sell or dispose of the said land, to take its possession and arrange to conduct all the proceedings in any court or department with regard to the same.

4. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he was put in possession in pursuance of the term