JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Defendants have carried this appeal against the decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge decreeing recovery of money and damages in a suit for specific performance of contract. Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal asking for specific performance of a contract. 2. Plaintiff is a broker and carries on the business of sale and purchase of real property. In course of his business he entered into an agreement with Defendants 1 to 4 on 1-2-1905 (Ext. 4) for purchase of 94 cents of land at the rate of Rs. 255/- percent. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by way of advance and it was stipulated that within four months from the date of the agreement, the boundaries of the 94 cents would be fixed up, non-encumberance certificate would be produced and title would be looked into and Defendants would sell the property to such persons as Plaintiff may direct and execute appropriate sale deeds and register the same. In the event of failure by the vendors to fulfil the obligation under the contract, they would be liable to refund the advance on account of consideration money and compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Alternately, if the Plaintiff failed to comply with his obligation under the agreement, he would take refund of the advance and pay a similar compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the vendors and would, lose his right to claim specific performance at the contract. On 1st of February, 1965, 22 cents out of the 94 cents were sold under four sale deeds each being for 5 1/2 cents in favour at one Sadananda, one at such sale deeds being Ext. 14. In Ext. 4, there was an endorsement of payment at Rs. 7,500/- on 5-2-1965 and another endorsement dated 3.11.1905 at payment of Rs. 4,000/. It was clearly indicated in the last endorsement that upto then a total amount of Rs. 12,500/- had been paid towards the consideration money agreed to be paid under the document. Plaintiff issued a notice on 5-12-1967 under Ext. 2 and filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement on 23-12-1907 and by amendment asked for relief at damage and recovery of the consideration money. On 20th of August, 1970, the learned Trial Judge allowed the amendment. Plaintiff issued a notice on 5-12-1967 under Ext. 2 and filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement on 23-12-1907 and by amendment asked for relief at damage and recovery of the consideration money. On 20th of August, 1970, the learned Trial Judge allowed the amendment. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court ultimately came to hold that Plaintiffs was not entitled to specific performance of contract, but found that he was liable to recover a sum of Rs. 17,900/- including the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with proportionate costs. 3. Defendants have filed the appeal challenging the direction for recovery of Rs. 17,900 and as already indicated Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal asking for specific performance of contract. 4. We may deal with the claim in the cross-appeal first. Contracts in regard to purchase of immovable property are ordinarily allowed to be specifically enforced on account of the fact that the contracting buyer cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. It is assumed in law that the intending buyer has a special interest for the property in question and damages by way of compensation would not be adequate. Provision has, therefore, been made in the Specific Relief Act for specific performance of contract in regard to immovable property and a statutory presumption has been raised that for non-performance of such contracts damages would not be adequate compensation. In the instant case, however, the Plaintiff did not intend to buy the property for himself He is a broker in real property and as Ext. 4, the contract for sale, would show, he intended to buy the property for being sold to others. Ext. 4 was brought about in course of Plaintiffs trading activity. In such circumstances, the very principle upon which specific performance is allowed of contracts for purchase of immovable property cannot be applied to the present case. Again, there is a specific provision in Ext. 4 that in the even of breach, compensation would be an adequate remedy. It has been categorically stipulated that if either party failed to fulfil the obligation created under the agreement, damage of Rs. 5,000/- would be payable. Again, there is a specific provision in Ext. 4 that in the even of breach, compensation would be an adequate remedy. It has been categorically stipulated that if either party failed to fulfil the obligation created under the agreement, damage of Rs. 5,000/- would be payable. In view of the fact that parties had already indicated the measure of damage in the event of non-fulfillments of the obligation created under the agreement, it cannot be said that it was difficult to determine the compensation that the willing party was going to suffer for the violation by the defaulting party. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Monfar Faja Choudhury v. Dewan Rowsan Kumar Khatun Choudhury and Ors. AIR 1943 Cal. 585, clearly stated that where according to the terms of the contract to lease out immovable property it is proved that the parties have agreed to accept compensation in money in case of breach, the contract cannot be specifically enforced. In the circumstances, for the two reasons indicated above, we are inclined to agree with the conclusion of the learned Trial Judge that Plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the contract. The cross-appeal has no force and must accordingly be dismissed. 5. We shall now deal with the appeal. Mr. Mohanty for the Appellants does not dispute that as per endorsement in Ext. 4, a total sum of Rs. 12,500/- had been received by way of advance. Plaintiff bad pleaded in paragraph 13(a) of the plaint that he had paid an advance of Rs. 13,500/- in all. In a reply to the notice under Ext. 2 sent by the Defendants through their advocate, there is an admission that the advance was to the tune of Rs. 14,500/-. It is stated by Mr. Ranjit Mohanty for the Appellants that Rs. 14,500/- was a mistake and it is contended that Plaintiff having claimed the advance to be of Rs. 13,500/- be should not be given credit for any further amount than claimed. In this state of affairs we are prepared to hold that the total advance received under Ext. 4 is Rs. 13,500/- as claimed by the Plaintiff. The next dispute is as to whether the endorsement of Rs. 7,500/- made on 5-2-1965 includes the sum of Rs. 13,500/- be should not be given credit for any further amount than claimed. In this state of affairs we are prepared to hold that the total advance received under Ext. 4 is Rs. 13,500/- as claimed by the Plaintiff. The next dispute is as to whether the endorsement of Rs. 7,500/- made on 5-2-1965 includes the sum of Rs. 6,000/- received by the Defendants on executing the four sale deeds for 22 cents out of the 94 cents agreed to be sold under the contract. Plaintiff alleges that the payment of Rs. 7,500/- acknowledged by the endorsement is over and above the mm of Rs. 6,000/- which had been directly received by the Defendants as vendors while Defendants maintain that the consideration of Rs. 6,000/- plus Rs. 1,500/- received independently from the Plaintiff were taken into account in acknowledging receipt of Rs. 7,500/-. We are inclined to agree with the defence version on account of the fact that if Rs. 6,000/- was not included in Rs. 7,500/- the Plaintiff would certain have insisted upon endorsing acknowledgement of Rs. 6.000/- also. Admittedly Rs. 6,000/- was towards the consideration stipulated in Ext. 4 and when Plaintiff was obtaining endorsement of acknowledgement in Ext. 4 from time to time, he would certainly have asked for such an endorsement. On 3-11-1965, when the last endorsement was made indicating the total amount received on account of consideration, Rs. 6.000/-would have been taken into account. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to hold that Rs. 6,000/- was a part of the total amount of Rs. 7,500/- acknowledged to have been received on 5-2-1965. The finding of the trial Court that it was independent of Rs. 7,500/- has to be vacated and in lieu thereof we would hold that the total payment on account of consideration under the agreement was Rs. 13,500/-. 22 decimals of lands belonging to the Defendants have, however, been sold for Rs. 6.000/- and since Defendants have lost title to the 22 cents of lands Plaintiff cannot be allowed recovery of Rs. 6,000/-. Deducting the said Rs. 6,000/-, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 7,500/- which must be said to have been advanced in regard to the remaining 72 cents of land. The learned Trial Judge, in our view, rightly fixed the damages at Rs. 5.000/-. Plaintiff is thus entitled to a net sum of Rs. 12,500/-. 6,000/-. Deducting the said Rs. 6,000/-, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 7,500/- which must be said to have been advanced in regard to the remaining 72 cents of land. The learned Trial Judge, in our view, rightly fixed the damages at Rs. 5.000/-. Plaintiff is thus entitled to a net sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The learned Trial Judge has given further compensation of Rs. 400/- towards expenses. We are prepared to sustain the same. 6. The appeal is allowed in part and instead of the decree for Rs. 17,900/-, Plaintiff is found entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,900/-. The amount shall carry interest pendente lite and future at the rate of six per cent per annum as decreed by the trial Court and the disputed property shall remain charged for the recovery of the decretal dues as directed in the judgment of the trial Court. Plaintiff shall be entitled to proportionate costs in the trial Court, but in lieu of divided success in this Court, both patties are directed to bear their respective costs in appeal. P.K. Mohanti, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed