The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement must be clear and enforceable for specific performance to be granted, and if not, alternative relief may be awarded.

1. Surjit Singh and Gurnam Singh plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the vendees") filed a suit for specific performance on the premises of an agreement to sell dated December 3, 1977 executed with one Chanan Ram defendant-respondent No. 1 who had agreed to sell the land defined in the agreement measuring 52 Kanals, 18 Marlas situated at village Salana Jeon Singhwala for a consideration of Rs. 19,000.00 per acre. The aforestated agreement was duly signed by Chanan Ram in token of acceptance of the averments contained therein and that the same has also been attested by the witnesses. Pursuant to the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15-6-1978. The earnest money of Rs. 10,000.00 had been paid at the time of execution of the agreement and that the remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. A stipulation is also contained in the aforestated agreement that the possession of the land, subject-matter of the agreement, shall be delivered after harvesting the Rabi crop of the year 1978. It may be mentioned that the aforestated land, at that time, was under the cultivation of one Gurnam Singh son of Nikka Singh (this person is different from Gurnam Singh who has been defined as plaintiff-appellant No. 2) as a tenant and that he surrendered possession of the same to the plaintiff-appellants in accordance with the terms of the aforestated agreement. It has been pleaded apart from the aforestated facts, that the plaintiff-appellants had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

2. It has been noticed by the Courts below that the plaintiff-appellants had also filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the aforestated property during the pendency of the suit. Another fact which has been noticed is that defendant Nos. 2 to 5 got the aforestated property attached by initiating the proceedings under Section 145/146 of Cr. P.C. and pursuant thereto got a Receiver appointed accordingly.

3. A notice had been issued to the vendor requiring him to execute the sale deed pursuant to the aforestated agreement and also get the same registered accordingly. The vendor did not respond to the notice, therefore, he never performed his part of the contract. The vendees came present before the Competent Authority on the appointed date i.e. 15-6-1978 along with necessary funds for the purpose of execution of the sale deed and registration thereof but the vendor did not turn tup. The vendees got their attendance noted down by way of filing an application before the Competent Authority. The plaintiffs have also asked for alternative relief for the refund of the earnest money, besides, the payment of Rs. 1,05,000.00 as damages. The defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been impleaded as parties as it has been alleged that the aforestated property fell to their lot on the premises of some family agreement, which is stated to have been executed amongst the defendants. However, the plea set up is that the alleged agreement is nothing but a result of collusion and fraud.

4. The suit has been contested by defendant-respondents by way of filing two separate written statements i.e. vendor has filed a separate written statement and so also defendant-respondents the plea set up by them is that the vendor had disowned his ownership of the aforestated land as the same had fallen to the share of the aforestated defendants on the premises of some family agreement which came into existence much prior to the agreement to sell dated December 3, 1977. They have also denied the knowledge of the agreement and have also pleaded that the vendor did not have any locus or any right to execute such kind of agreement. They have further pleaded that pursuant to the family arrangement the partition proceedings had been initiated which came into being on August 15, 1971 amongst all the said defendant-respond