N. Kumar, J.—This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement for sale.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the original suit.

3. The subject-matter of the suit is an agricultural land bearing S.No.170(170/2) situated at Kethohalli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 2 acres 32 guntas, which is hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property .The defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule land. There is a mango grove. The defendant acquired the said property under a registered partition deed dated 14.2.1965 effected among the members of his family. Apart from other properties, he got the suit schedule property to his share. He claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The property is free from all encumbrances, there are no attachments, claim for maintenance, minor rights, etc. The revenue records and pahanies are all standing in the name of the defendant. He has been paying taxes regularly. The defendant offered to sell the above property to the plaintiff in order to meet his family necessities and other domestic commitments. Negotiations took place in the second week of April 1986. When the offer was made to the plaintiff and when he showed interest, he was shown the property which was to be sold to him. Thereafter, negotiations were concluded. The defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000. The said agreement was reduced to writing on 25.4.1996. A sum of Rs.1,00,000 was paid in part performance of the agreement by way of cheque No.670802 drawn in favour of the defendant. Six months’ time was stipulated for completion of the sale transaction. The defendant had agreed to obtain conversion order in respect of the suit schedule property before the six months period expired. In fact, he undertook to produce the conversion certificate before fifteen days earlier to the six months period. The defendant agreed to handover all the original documents of title at the time of registration of the sale deed. He also agreed to obtain necessary permission and clearances required for completion of the transaction. The plaintiff was expected to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of the defendant executing the sale deed and getting it registered. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In part performance of the contract, the defendant had received the amounts which are set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint in all amounting to Rs.7,78,500 which is in excess by Rs.28,500 than the agreed amount. The defendant has acknowledged the receipt of the said amounts on various dates under his signature. The endorsements are made on the backside of the agreement for sale itself.

4. The plaintiff came to know that the application filed for conversion by the defendant was rejected on the ground that there is no road approach as required. The defendant did not inform the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being a physically handicapped person interested to take up agriculture, applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division, Ramanagara, for permission to purchase the suit schedule property under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 7.12.1998, issued necessary permission to the plaintiff. The plaintiff continues to be in possession of the property from 6.3.1996 and also taking the usufructs of the mango trees. Nothing remained to be done by the plaintiff under the agreement. He had to purchase necessary stamp papers, pay the registration charges and get the sale deed executed. The defendant had also obtained draft of the sale deed from the plaintiff to obtain income-tax clearance in the month of October 1998. In those circumstances, when the defendant did not