14275 OF 1996 O R D E R The petitioner, Pirthi Sansi admittedly had entered into an agreement or May 6, 1988 to sell 16 kanal 16 marlas of agricultural land for a companysideration of Rs.50,000/ per killa and received a sum of Rs.24,000/ as earnest money.
The Court should grant alternative relief instead of granting decree for specific performance.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge by his judgment dated November 15, 1994 reversed the decree holding that Ramesh and others had companye into possession of the land.
In second appeal, the High Court reversed the decree by the impugned judgment dated May 15, 1996 in R.S.A. NO.425/95 and restored the judgment of the trial Court.
Therefore, the High Court rightly allowed the appeal holding them to be number a bona fide purchasers and directed decree for specific performance in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 6.5.1988.
It is an admitted fact that Ramesh and Shashi Kapoor, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had companye into possession after the suit was instituted and agreement to sell was entered into.
Accepting the case of the respondent, the trial Court decreed the suit.
It was his plea and accepted by all companyrts that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and was willing and ready to pay the balance companysideration or Rs.
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance in April 1993 against the petitioner.
AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
Shri Mahabir Singh, learned companynsel for the petitioner, companytended that companysideration of granting for specific performance is a discretion of the companyrt and the companyrts granting the decree for specific performance should exercise the discretion on sound principles of law.
81,000/ .
