Aniruddha Bose JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The question of law arising in these appeals is whether a vendee who does not perform one of his promises in a contract can obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance of that very contract.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mohinder Kaur, predecessor in interest of the Appellants entered into an agreement with Bahadur Singh, predecessor in interest of the Respondents on 13.05.1964 whereby she agreed to sell the suit land to Bahadur Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5605/-. Out of this, Rs. 1000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell, and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The possession of the land was handed over to the vendee on the date of agreement to sell itself. Since there was some litigation with regard to the property it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of decision of civil appeal pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
3. To decide the appeals, it would be necessary to refer to Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement to sell which read as under:
xxx xxx xxx
2) That an appeal in respect of the above-mentioned land is pending in the High Court and after decision in the said appeal, the First Party shall execute and register Sale Deed in favour of the Second Party in the month of July, 1965.
3) That the possession of the land has been handed today and in case the decision by the High Court in the appeal is after one year, then the sale deed shall be executed and registered after one month from the date of decision and in the circumstance, the Second Party shall pay to the First party the customary rent for the said land.
xxx xxx xxx
4. It is not disputed that the litigation referred to in the agreement was decided on 17.01.1977, i.e., about 13 years after the agreement to sell was entered into. Bahadur Singh requested Mohinder Kaur to execute the sale deed but since she failed to do so, a suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed by Bahadur Singh. In the alternative, it was prayed that a decree be passed for a sum of Rs. 5605/-, i.e. Rs. 1000/- paid as earnest money and Rs. 4605/- as damages. This suit was contested on various grounds but we are concerned with only one wherein the Defendant raised the plea that since Bahadur Singh had admittedly failed to pay the rent of the land in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance.
5. The suit has been decreed by all the courts below. There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects. The only issue is whether the vendee Bahadur Singh who admittedly did not pay the rent is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 13.05.1964. The courts below have held that the agreement contained several promises which may be reciprocal,