Anand Byrareddy, J.— Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondent remains absent.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, to purchase a parcel of land measuring 40 feet by 150 feet in Survey No. 71/5 of Kavalbyrasandra, Bangalore North Taluk. The sale price agreed upon was Rs. 16,000. The agreement was dated 21.4.1980. An advance amount of Rs.5,000 was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. The land in question was agricultural land, which was sought to be sold by the vendor as a house sites. The sale transaction was to be completed, by the execution and registration of a sale deed, within three months from the date of the agreement. The defendant did not abide by the agreement and failed to execute the sale deed on the expiry of the time agreed upon. The plaintiff had issued a notice and followed up with a suit for specific performance of contract as on 2.8.1980, as the defendant failed to respond.

The suit was contested. The Trial Court rendered judgment, dated 5.2.1997, dismissing the suit on the finding that the plaintiff had expressly agreed that he would be entitled to damages only in the event of a breach of the agreement by the defendant and hence was not entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract.

The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged in appeal before this Court. This Court, by its judgment, dated 10.6.2001, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for consideration of the quantum of damages, to which the plaintiff was held entitled in terms of the agreement.

On remand, the plaintiff had amended his plaint to claim damages and costs of litigation at Rs.12,00,000 and Rs, 25,000, respectively. The suit was decreed, in part, awarding damages at Rs.10,000 and costs of Rs, 3,000. It is this which is under challenge in the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Court below has thought it fit to award only twice the amount of the advance price, paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, as compensation. It is contended that the Court below has held that the alleged loss on account of the breach of contract could not be assessed on the basis on which the plaintiff was claiming since the land in question continued to be treated as agricultural land, for the record, by the Competent Authority though the environs of the suit property consisted of similar lands but were completely built up and were no longer under cultivation, as was the case with the suit property, which was also intended to be built upon. This reasoning of the Court below, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant is divorced from reality and contends that there was need for a more pragmatic approach, in the interest of justice while considering the grant of an equitable relief.

The learned Counsel would point out that material was produced before the Trial namely, Exhibits P5, P6 and P7, which were copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to neighbouring lands, to demonstrate the comparative value of the property, as on the date of till agreement and over a period of time. It is contended that if the defendant had adhered to the contract, the property which the appellant would have acquired would not be less than the sum claimed as compensation, which ought to have been granted by the Trial Court.

It is contended that the Court below has failed to apply the settled principles of law in addressing the case of the appellant. It is further contended that the Court below has not taken into account the litigation expenses actually incurred over a period of 25 years, in awarding a nominal sum towards costs claimed.

The learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Jai Narain Parasrampuria (dead) and Others v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Others, 2006(7) SCC 756, to contend that the appel