JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

This is a plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2006 which arose out of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 6, Meerut in Original Suit No. 49 of 1998.

2. The suit properties in Original Suit No. 49 of 1998 are House Nos. 296 and 298 Indira Nagar, Delhi Road, Meerut. The previous numbers of the suit properties were House Nos. 334/3 and 334/6, which were subsequently renumbered as House Nos. 158Kha and 159Ka.

3. The facts of the case are that the defendant No. 1, Ajay Pal Singh, was the owner of the suit property. On 6.10.1997 the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement to sale regarding the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. The sale consideration agreed in the agreement to sale was Rs. 3,50,000/-. Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1. The sale-deed was to be executed by 27.12.1997 on payment of balance amount. The agreement further provided that the stamp duty payable on the sale-deed and the registration charges shall be shared equally by the vendor and the vendee, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 17.12.1997 they purchased the stamps payable on the sale-deed and on 20.12.1997 purchased two bank drafts of Rs. 1,50,000/- each for payment of the balance amount to defendant No. 1. On 20.12.1997, the plaintiffs sent telegram and a fax message to the defendant No. 1 asking him to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Meerut on 23.12.1997 for execution of the sale-deed. The defendant No. 1 did not appear in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 23.12.1997 though the plaintiffs were present and also got their presence recorded by the Sub-Registrar. Subsequently, the plaintiffs again sent telegrams to the defendant No. 1 on 24.12.1997 and 25.12.1997 asking him to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 27.12.1997 to execute the sale-deed. However, the defendant No. 1 did not appear in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 27.12.1997 though the plaintiffs were present on the said date and also got their presence recorded by the Sub-Registrar. On 2.1.1998 the plaintiffs sent another telegram to the defendant No. 1 seeking his presence in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Meerut on 10.1.1998 for execution of sale-deed, but as 10.1.1998 was a holiday, another telegram dated 5.1.1998 was sent to the defendant No. 1 seeking his presence before the Sub-Registrar on 12.1.1998 for execution of the sale-deed. In the meantime the defendant No. 1 executed sale-deed dated 31.12.1997 transferring the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2 and sent a notice dated 28.12.1997 cancelling the agreement to sale dated 6.10.1997. The notice dated 28.12.1997 was dispatched at the address of the plaintiffs on 2.1.1998. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that at the time of the agreement dated 6.10.1997 one Praveen Kumar Jain was in possession of the suit property and after the agreement the defendant No. 1 alongwith the plaintiffs instituted different suits for eviction of Praveen Kumar Jain from the suit property. The defendant No. 2 is the brother-in-law of Praveen Kumar Jain and both are partners in a Firm named as Birla Aircon.

5. On the aforesaid averments, the plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 49 of 1998 for specific performance of contract pleading that they were always ready and willing to perform the terms of contract and to get the sale-deed executed in their favour on the basis of the agreement dated 6.10.1997. Additionally, the plaintiffs also claimed a decree awarding Rs. 5,000/- for the loss suffered due to return of stamps and further for damages at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day for wrongful occupation of the suit property by defendant No. 1.

6. The defendants contested the aforesaid suit No. 49 of 199