The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defaulting party to pay the predetermined amount as stipulated in the agreement, as well as the requirement for appellate courts to provide reasons for reversing trial court judgments.

Rajive Bhalla, J. - The plaintiff-appellant has filed this second appeal impugning the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Amritsar, dated November 18, 1983 whereby the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ajnala dated May 21, 1982 was partly reversed.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Jarnail Singh (defendant-respondent No. 1) executed an agreement to sell in favour of Mohan Singh (plaintiff-appellant) on January 25, 1979 agreeing to sell 36 Kanals 13 Marlas of land at a rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Earnest money of Rs. 12,000/- was received by respondent No. 1 on January 25, 1979 and it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or before April 01, 1980. The agreement to sell further stipulates that in the eventuality of respondent No. 1 failing to execute the sale deed, the appellant would be entitled to receive damages amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. The appellant is alleged to have paid another sum of Rs. 18,000/-, to respondent No. 1 on March 30, 1979. On April 01, 1980 the appellant, arrived at the office of the Tehsildar, Ajnala, for the execution of the sale deed but respondent No. 1 absented himself. In the interRegulation m, respondent No. 1 executed two sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on January 28, 1980 and January 29, 1980, transferring the land agreed to be sold to the appellant to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Thereafter, the appellant issued a registered notice dated March 28, 1980, calling upon respondent No. 1 to execute the sale deed. As respondent No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance and in the alternative prayed for the recovery of Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 30,000/- as damages.

3. Respondent No. 1, after putting in appearance, filed a written statement alleging that the agreement to sell had been executed by fraud, but in the same breath averred that he had received a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only and had not received the entire amount. It was further pleaded that despite his repeated requests to the appellant to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed executed, the appellant failed to do so. It was also averred that the appellant was aware of the previous agreement dated December 04, 1978 executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 put in appearance and sought the dismissal of the suit on the plea that they had no knowledge of the existence of any agreement of sell, in favour of the appellant and that respondent No. 1 had executed a prior agreement to sell in their favour which had culminated into two sale deeds. These respondents also raised a plea that they were bona fide purchasers without notice for valuable consideration.

5. The learned trial Court, after framing issues, recorded evidence and hearing arguments held that the agreement to sell dated January 25, 1979 had indeed been executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant, respondent No. 1 had received a sum of Rs. 12,000/- at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell, respondent No. 1 had received a sum of Rs. 18,000/- on March 30, 1979 and that the appellant had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell and it was respondent No. 1 who had failed to execute the sale deed. However, the trial Court accepted the plea of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration, and, therefore, declined the relief of specific performance. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 12,000/- paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, Rs. 18,000/- paid on March 30, 1979 and also held that as respondent No. 1 had failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, as mentioned in the agreement to sell. Thus, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance, but decreed the suit fo