( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 21st november, 2003 by which learned District Judge, jabalpur has decreed the suit No. 11 -A/2002 directing the specific performance of contract of sale.

( 2 ) IN short the plaintiff's case, as averred in the plaint, shows that defendant owned 2. 588 hectare of land comprised in Survey number 189/6 situated at Mouza Baitala, an agreement was entered into by Siddhar-tha housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "co-operative society")for purchasing of the land from Shri Liladhar yadav/defendant at the rate of Rs. Two Lac per acre, agreement was executed on 8-5-1996, an advance of Rs. One Lac was paid to the defendant, by mistake Survey No. 189/6 was wrongly typed as Survey No. 181/6. The defendant was paid further sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 20-12-1997, Rs. 5,000/-an 24-12-1999, Rs. 10. 000/- on 8-3-2000 and Rs. 5,000/- on 28-12-2000. It was averred that defendant had agreed to level the land by Bulldozer. Permission from ceiling Authority was also to be obtained. Defendant shall intimate the permission and within four months, defendant shall execute a sale deed after receiving the balance consideration. Defendant did not obtain no-objection certificate from Competent Authority (Ceiling), Jabalpur. The plaintiff served the defendant with a notice dated 3rd June, 1997 which was received by the defendant on 7-6-1997, no reply was given, the Ceiling Act was repealed by the State Government in March, 2000. Thereafter the President of the plaintiff/society orally requested to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff/society, but the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed on one pretest or the other. The plaintiff/society has sufficient fund for execution of sale deed. It was and is ready and willing to perform its part of contract, but the defendant is avoiding to perform his part of contract. Plaintiff served the defendant with a notice dated 17th July, 2002 to execute the sale deed. Notice was received back with the remark that recipient has died, thereafter a telegraphic notice was sent on 21-7-2002, no reply was received, plaintiff got the notices published in newspapers Navbharat and Dainik Bhaskar, jabalpur dated 18th September, 2002. The defendant published a notice in daily newspaper dainik Bhaskar dated 25-9-2002 that notice published by the plaintiff was false and it was mentioned that advance given by the Society stood forfeited. Hence, suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale, plaint was presented on 11-10-2002.

( 3 ) IN the written statement filed by defendant it was contended that land is situated adjoining to the road, price was settled at Rs. 2 Lacs per acre, out of Rs. 12 Lacs only a sum of Rs. 1 Lac was given. The defendant was in a position to execute the sale deed immediately, but the plaintiff had no money to get the sale deed executed and wanted time to collect the funds, aforesaid land was not at all involved in any ceiling case, as they had no arrangement of funds, it was mentioned in the agreement that permission of Ceiling Authority has to be obtained, there was no dispute about the measurement, levelling of the land was got done within a period of one month, within four months next thereafter sale deed was not got executed as there were no arrangement of funds with the society, number was incorrectly mentioned in the agreement, however, that is of no consequence. Against the settled terms, only Rs. 30,000/- was paid on different dates subsequently. Plaintiff was not ready to purchase the land nor willing to perform its part of the contract, value of the land was much more. Defendant agreed because he required money for treatment of his mother. Real value was more than Rs. 3 lacs per acre, agreement has already come to an end, as there was failure on part of plaintiff to carry out its obligation, there is no subsisting cause of action against the defendant. S