Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The only argument vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in this Regular Second Appeal, is that the plaintiffs had made an alternative prayer in the suit for grant of liquidated damages/compensation for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and thus, the learned courts below ought not to have granted the decree for specific performance. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of S. Rangaraju Naidhu v. S. Thiruvarakkarsau, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1769.

2. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer certain facts of this case.

3. A suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 7.11.1985 executed by the defendants in regard to the suit land was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, Rattan Lal. It was stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the land for the total sale consideration of Rs. 47,000/-. Out of which Rs. 13,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of agreement and the balance was to be paid upon execution of the sale deed which was to be executed on 1.6.1986. The agreement also contains a clause that in the event of default on the part of t