Judgment :- 1. Defendant 4 in O.S. No. 21 of 1119 on the file of the District Court, Parur, has preferred this appeal against the decree that Court passed in the suit for specific performance of an agreement by defendants 1 to 3 to sell certain items of immovable properties to the plaintiff. The appellant purchased those properties subsequent to the contract for sale and the lower court's decree directs enforcement of the agreement against the appellant as well as one whose title arose after it came into being. Hence this appeal by him. 2. The main defence he raised to the suit was that he was a transferee for value who paid the consideration for the sale in his favour in good faith and without notice to the original contract. That defence has been found against by the learned judge in the court below and the appellant's learned Counsel did not try to repeat that contention before us. The one and the sole point urged before us to nonsuit the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had by his notice Ext. B issued to defendants 1 to 3 abandoned his claim for specific performance of the contract and elected to limit his remedy to claim damages instead. No doubt the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 raises such a defence and what the appellant is now doing is to abandon the defence he himself raised and try to depend upon a plea raised by his vendors. There is nothing to preclude him from adopting such a course but we are afraid Ext. B does not lend itself to the construction sought to be put upon it. It states that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and invites defendants 1 to 3 to go over to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Moovattupuzha, on 30.2.1119 to have the conveyance executed and registered and to receive the balance consideration payable as per the terms of the agreement. It further states that in the event of defendants failing to comply with the request the plaintiff will be taking such action as he is advised to take and that the defendants (defendants 1 to 3) and the properties will be held liable for all his losses and damages. It further states that in the event of defendants failing to comply with the request the plaintiff will be taking such action as he is advised to take and that the defendants (defendants 1 to 3) and the properties will be held liable for all his losses and damages. Reading the notice as a whole all that it intends to convey is that unless defendants 1 to 3 execute the conveyance as agreed to, the plaintiff will file a suit and that the defendants will be liable for all consequences thereof. The plaintiff has not stated that he will be content with receiving damages. The written statements the defendants filed in the suit as also the memorandum of appeal filed before this court on behalf of the appellant proceed as if the provision for liquidated damages in a contract of sale would preclude a party thereto from seeking specific performance thereof. This is a wrong assumption as would be clear from S. 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Further S.19 provides that any person suing for the performance of a contract may also ask for compensation for his breach, either in addition to, or in substitution for, such performance. Viewed in the light of these provisions occurring in the Specific Relief Act and the language of Ext. B we cannot persuade ourselves to accept the construction sought to be put upon the notice Ext. B by the appellant's learned Counsel that there is a definite abandonment there of the plaintiff's right to seek specific performance. 3. This, as stated already, was the main point pressed in the appeal and for reasons stated above it cannot succeed. However there are a few other points to be referred to in respect of which our interference would seem to be called for. One of such points is that the lower court's direction that the money paid into the court towards the balance of consideration for the sale should be drawn by defendants 1 to 3 jointly. On their own showing defendants 1 to 3 had received consideration for the sale they executed in favour of defendant 4, vide para 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3. On their own showing defendants 1 to 3 had received consideration for the sale they executed in favour of defendant 4, vide para 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3. No doubt defendants 1 and 2 tried to go back upon that case in a compromise petition they filed in court on 20.5.1120 together with the plaintiff, but thereafter they disappeared from the scene and would seem to have remained exparte in the subsequent proceedings before the lower court. Defendant 4 has proved that he paid the consideration for the sale deed (Ext. I) in his favour to his vendors. There is no meaning in asking them to receive payment over again. This is one of the points raised in the memorandum of appeal and it appears to us to be a sound view that the balance consideration for the sale to the plaintiff should go to defendant 4 and not to defendants 1 to 3. Reference may in this connection be made to page 648 of Pollock and Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Seventh Edn. When a person buys land with notice that another has already contracted to buy it the former stands in the position of a trustee for the latter of the land purchased by him and he could not profit by the conveyance to him except to stand in the shoes of the vendor and receive the purchase money from him, on payment of which he would have to convey the land to the latter. See also Gangaram v. Laxman Ganoba - ILR 1916 (40) Bom. 498. Defendants 1 to 3 are made respondents to this appeal and though the appellant has claimed this relief against them they have not chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter. In the circumstances we set aside the lower court's direction that defendants 1 to 3 shall receive the consideration money in court or to be paid hereafter into the court and make a direction instead that defendant 4 shall receive all such amounts. 4. This naturally leads us to the question as to who should execute the conveyance but before that there is a further point to be mentioned regarding the consideration. Admittedly the agreement was to sell the properties concerned for Rs. 3000/-. The advance paid when Ext. A was executed was only Rs. 4. This naturally leads us to the question as to who should execute the conveyance but before that there is a further point to be mentioned regarding the consideration. Admittedly the agreement was to sell the properties concerned for Rs. 3000/-. The advance paid when Ext. A was executed was only Rs. 200/- and the provision in that agreement is that Rs. 1000/- should be reserved with the vendee and the balance of Rs. 1800 should be paid when the conveyance is executed. The plaintiff has paid into court only Rs. 1800/- and no mention is made in the plaint or in the lower court's judgment or decree as to what should happen to the balance Rs. 1000 or when it should be paid. Ext. A, the agreement is silent as to why this amount was allowed to remain in the hands of the vendee and what was stated at the Bar was that the vendors were free to call for it at any time. When a court directs specific enforcement of sale of immoveable properties it should as far as possible try to place the parties in the same position they would have been had the agreement been performed out of court. We therefore think it only just and equitable that the plaintiff should be asked to pay that amount also before the defendants or the court executes a conveyance in his favour. The plaintiff had asked for and been given mesne profits from the date of the suit. When he is getting mesne profits it is only fair that this amount of Rs. 1000/- is made to bear reasonable interest until it is paid into court. We accordingly direct that that amount shall bear interest at six per cent per annum till the plaintiff pays the same into court. The conveyance in his favour shall take place only after that amount also is paid into court. The conveyance in favour of defendant 4, Ext. I shows that of the two thousand nine hundred rupees fixed as consideration, two thousand five hundred alone was paid in cash and the balance consideration was made good by his undertaking to pay Rs. 400 towards a prior charge. No reference was made in the argument as to whether this has been discharged or not. No doubt some new documents have been produced in this court but no reference was made to them. 400 towards a prior charge. No reference was made in the argument as to whether this has been discharged or not. No doubt some new documents have been produced in this court but no reference was made to them. The appellant should therefore before he draws any money from the lower court satisfy that court that the prior encumbrance referred to in Ext. I has been duly discharged. 5. The lower court's direction is that defendants 1 to 3 should execute the conveyance and that in the event of their failure the court will execute it. Reference has already been made to the decision in ILR 1916 (40) Bom. 498 which states that in circumstances similar to the present it is the subsequent vendee who should be asked to execute the conveyance. He obtains title by the sale in his favour, no doubt voidable at the instance of the person in whose favour there was a prior contract of sale. Besides the decision referred to other cases have also laid down that the proper decree in a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land when the same has been sold to a third party subsequent to the contract with the plaintiff is to direct the subsequent purchaser to execute a conveyance to the plaintiff. See Subhitha Pillai v. Velappa Naickan 1911 (22) MLJ 124 and Gaurishankar v. Ibrahim - AIR 1929 Nag. 298 at page 303 and foot-note (n) on page 716 of Pollock and Mulla Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Seventh Edn. In this case however there is some dispute whether defendant 4 the appellant got under his conveyance exhausts the properties covered by Ext. A. In modification of the direction contained in the lower court's decree we therefore direct that the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff will be executed by defendants 1 to 4 and that the court will execute it in case they do not do it within two months of the receipt of the records from here by the lower court. 6. No other point arises in the appeal but there remains the plaintiff's memorandum of objections to be dealt with. By that memorandum the plaintiff seeks to enhance the rate of mesne profits. He had claimed Rs. 750/- per year but the lower court has allowed only Rs. 250/-. 6. No other point arises in the appeal but there remains the plaintiff's memorandum of objections to be dealt with. By that memorandum the plaintiff seeks to enhance the rate of mesne profits. He had claimed Rs. 750/- per year but the lower court has allowed only Rs. 250/-. We heard the relevant evidence read before us in court and are not satisfied that there is ground for interference and accordingly dismiss the memo of objections with costs. While on this we would point out that when defendants 1 to 3 have ceased to have possession it is wrong to make them liable for mesne profits. The party liable to the plaintiff in respect of that relief is defendant 4, the appellant who admits that he has been in Oodukoor possession of the properties sold to him since the date of the conveyance in his favour. The lower court's decision will stand modified in this respect as well. 7. In the result subject to the modifications made above the appeal and the memorandum of objections will both stand dismissed with costs. No doubt the appellant has succeeded to a certain extent but those are mostly incidental directions which we ourselves thought it proper to incorporate into the judgment.