Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is a second appeal instituted by the legal representatives of the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, seeking possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30.01.2000, stated to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, Bachan Singh. The present appellants are seen to be his widow, two sons and five daughters, as per the memo of parties before this Court.

The suit instituted on 01.08.2000 having been decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, on 05.02.2004 and the first appeal filed by the defendant against that judgment and decree having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide her judgment and decree dated 16.03.2012, the present second appeal has come to be filed.

2. The facts leading up to the filing of the suit by respondent-plaintiff Naranjan Singh are being taken from the judgments of the Courts below.

As per the plaintiff, the defendant was owner of land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Dudwindi, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, fully described in the head note of the plaint. The defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- per acre and therefore, an agreement had been entered into on 30.01.2000, “in the presence of a scribe and attesting witnesses” and the defendant had received Rs.6,35,000/- as earnest money in their presence. Rs.2,00,000/- were stated to have been paid in cash and Rs.4,35,000/- were paid vide cheque no.110906 dated 31.01.2000, drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Dudwindi.

As per the agreement, the land was to be sold alongwith all incidental rights and a tubewell bore with an electricity connection of 2 HP, a security room, etc., constructed thereupon.

The date for execution of the sale deed was stated to have been fixed as 15.05.2000, with the balance sale consideration to be paid at the time of such execution and registration of the deed.

The possession of the land was also to be given at the time of the execution of the sale deed. It was further stated to have been stipulated in the agreement that if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed and get it registered, the plaintiff would have the right to have it executed and registered through a court or to recover the earnest money paid by him, alongwith an equal amount thereupon, with the total compensation thereby coming to Rs.12,70,000/-.

Conversely, if the plaintiff failed to honour his part of the agreement, the earnest money was to be forfeited to the defendant.

3. As per the plaintiff, on the date fixed for execution of the deed, i.e. 15.05.2000, he remained present in the Tehsil premises with the balance sale consideration and expenses but despite waiting there from morning to evening, the defendant never turned up and consequently, the plaintiff got an affidavit attested at the Tehsil by way of proof of his presence there.

He thereafter got a notice issued on 16.05.2000 to the defendant, requiring him to get the sale deed executed and registered on 06.06.2000 but on that date also, though the plaintiff claimed that he remained present in the Teshsil office again, with the balance sale consideration and expenses, the defendant never turned up through out the day. Consequently, the plaintiff again got an affidavit attested as proof of his presence at the Tehsil office.

He also got another legal notice issued to the defendant on 09.06.2000, requiring him to execute the sale deed on 26.06.2000, but yet again, on that date also, the defendant did not turn up, with the plaintiff again getting an affidavit attested to show his presence at the Tehsil office.

Thus, contending that he had always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant having failed to do so, the suit was instituted on 01.08.2000.

In his suit, the plaintif