D. P. Wadhwa, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the plaintiff s appeal against the judgmentand decree dated 15/01/1991, of the learned Single Judge by whichthough the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of a certain agreementto sell executed by the defendant-respondent as vendor was decreed, a condition was imposed on the plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration in Courtwithin a period of two months. It is against this direction of deposit of saleconsideration that the plaintiff has filed the appeal. ( 2 ) THE defendant on 1/02/1989, executed a receipt for havingreceived a sum of Rs. I lakh in cash as earnest money from the plaintiff forsale of his house bearing No. D-22, Defence Colony, New Delhi, built on aplot of land measuring 333 sq. yds. The sale consideration was agreed atrs. 70 lakhs out of this Rs. 6 lakhs were to be paid at the time of the executionof regular agreement to sell and the balance Rs. 63 lakhs at the time ofregistration of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, New Delhi, after necessary sale permission from the Land and Development Office and clearancefrom the Appropriate Authority under Section 269uc of the Income-tax Act,1961. The plaintiff on 24/02/1989, filed the suit for injunction againstthe defendant praying that defendant to comply with his obligation in joiningthe plaintiff for obtaining clearance under Section 269uc of the Income-taxact, 1961, and to execute the formal agreement to sell. Plaintiff also sought a restraint on the defendant from selling, transferring, or otherwise creatingany third party interest respecting the suit property. Written statement wasfiled questioning the maintainability of suit. Subsequently, however, on anapplication filed by the plaintiff the suit was allowed to be converted into onefor specific performance of the agreement to sell. Now the plaintiff prayedfor a decree for specific performance in respect of contract/agreement dated 1/02/1989, requiring the defendant to transfer property No. D-22,defence Colony, New Delhi, against receipt of balance of sale considerationof Rs. 69,00,000. 00 by executing a transfer/sale deed in respect of the aforesaidproperty and presenting the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar,new Delhi. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for possession in his favourdirecting the defendant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession ofthis property to the plaintiff. There was prayer in the alternative for damagesas well. 69,00,000. 00 by executing a transfer/sale deed in respect of the aforesaidproperty and presenting the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar,new Delhi. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for possession in his favourdirecting the defendant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession ofthis property to the plaintiff. There was prayer in the alternative for damagesas well. ( 3 ) AT the time when amendment of the plaint was allowed it wasalso directed that plaintiff would appear in Court on the next date of hearingand he would also file an affidavit before that date as to how he intended tomake arrangement for the payment of the sale consideration as alleged by him. Though the affidavit was filed, the plaintiff did not appear. Again he wasdirected to appear in Court but then also he defaulted. In the affidavit filedby the plaintiff, he stated as under :- "3. That I stated that besides money in banks, I have investmentsin various companies which I can draw upon, retrieve or utilise forthe purchase of the suit property. I had floated new company M/s. Peacock Farms (P) Ltd. and I wanted to get the house registeredin the name of the said company on advise of my Tax consultantsand I would have routed my monies/investments to the said companyfor payment of the sale consideration. The Defendant objected tosell the house in the name of my company and I had agreed topurchase the house in my name in accordance with the writing dated1. 2. 89. " ( 4 ) AFTER some more hearings before the learned Single Judge, thedefendant filed an application (I. A. 9010/90) on 3/11/1990, stating thatthe suit was frivolous because the plaintiff was never ready and willing to paythe sale consideration and to have the sale deed executed and that his onlyobject had been to raise some controversy and to delay the disposal of thesuit by all possible means. Defendant said that the suit of the plaintiff was anabuse of the process of the Court. The defendant further said that withoutprejudice to his right to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery ofdamages/loss caused to him, the plaintiff be directed to produce the sum ofrs. 69 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs for paying the registration charges and on thatthe defendant was willing to execute the documents for the purpose of completing the sale. Reply to this applicatfon of the defendant was filed by theplaintiff. 69 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs for paying the registration charges and on thatthe defendant was willing to execute the documents for the purpose of completing the sale. Reply to this applicatfon of the defendant was filed by theplaintiff. That the suit was false and frivolous was denied. He said theapplication had been filed to save costs incurred by the plaintiff in filing thesuit. He said the sale consideration be paid after the defendant had compliedwith the necessary formalities. He said the defendant was at that time onlyentitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and no more. ( 5 ) IN view of the respective stand taken by the parties, the Court didnot frame any issue and after hearing the arguments gave its judgment. Thesuit was decreed as under :- "i decree the suit and direct that the plaintiff shall deposit incourt the balance sale consideration of Rs. 69,00,000. 00 within twomonths and on such amount being deposited the defendant shalltake steps to execute and register the sale deed in favour of theplaintiff after complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Actwithin two months thereafter and in case the defendant fails totake such steps, the Registrar of this Court shall take stepsin accordance with law for executing and registering the saledeed in favour of the plaintiff after taking necessary stepsunder the provisions of the Income-tax Act as well. The plaintiffshall have half of the costs of the suit from the defendant and alsopossession of the property. In case the plaintiff fails to depositthe amount within the stipulated period, the suit shall stand dismissed with costs. The defendant can withdraw the amount, if sodeposited, only on execution and registration of sale deed in favourof the plaintiff. All the I. As. would stand disposed of. " ( 6 ) ON 8/02/1991, the plaintiff filed an application (I. A. 1308/91) praying that time for depositing the amount as ordered in the judgmentmay be enlarged. After notice to the defendant the Court dismissed theapplication on 27/02/1991. The Court, however, observed that in orderto see that the amount which was deposited did not become static it wasordered that in case the plaintiff deposits the amount the same would be keptby the Registrar in fixed deposit for a period of six months initially. Againstthis order the plaintiff filed an appeal [fao (OS) 48/9. 1] before a Divisionbench of this Court. Againstthis order the plaintiff filed an appeal [fao (OS) 48/9. 1] before a Divisionbench of this Court. The Court dismissed the appeal by order dated 11/03/1991. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale considerationwithin four weeks after expiry of two months from the date of the decree onthe condition that the plaintiff would forego costs of the suit as a consequenceof extension of time. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff, it appears did not deposit the amount as ordered inthe decree. This appeal was then filed on 15/04/1991 against the decree. We issued notice to show cause to the defendant as to why appeal be notadmitted and at the same time stayed the operative portion of the decree inso far as it required the plaintiff to deposit the amount within a period of twomonths or within the extended period. Answer to show cause notice havingbeen filed by the defendant, we have heard the learned Counsel for the partiesin fuller details. Mr. Anand, learned Counsel for the appellant, said thatdirection requiring the plaintiff to deposit the amount of balance sale consideration was not legal and it was not only against the receipt/agreement to selldated 1/02/1989, but also against the specific provisions of Section55 (l) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act. He said the requirement of lawwas that the balance sale consideration was to be paid only at the time ofregistration of the sale deed. Mr. Anand, however, did not say anything as towhy at least the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs could not have been paid. In supportof his submission on Section 55 (l) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act hereferred TO to four decisions of the High Courts in (1) Zakir Sadagar v. Dolegobind Ghose and Others, AIR 1955 Pat 201 ; A:. Saraswathi (alias) K. Kalpana v. P. S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar, 1977 (2) Mad. L. J. 68; (3) Ramkrishna and Another v. Mukand Shanker and Another, AIR 1963 Allahabad49; and (4) Maruti Vishnu Kshirsagar v. Bapu Keshav Jadhav, AIR 1970bombay 398. ( 8 ) SECTION 55 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for rights andliabilities of buyer and seller of immovable property. These are in the absenceof a contract to the contrary between the parties. ( 8 ) SECTION 55 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for rights andliabilities of buyer and seller of immovable property. These are in the absenceof a contract to the contrary between the parties. Under clause (d) of subsection (1) of this section the seller is bound, on payment or tender of theamount due in respect of the price, to execute a proper conveyance of the property when the buyer tenders it to him for execution at a proper time andplace. That may be so but here the suit is for specific performance of anagreement to sell respecting immovable property and Court has discretion,though judicial discretion, to grant such a reliefer not. The Court is wellwithin its rights to impose conditions and no fault can be found with these. ( 9 ) MR. Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that the plaintiff had accepted the judgment when he applied to the Courtfor extension of time for deposit of the balance sale consideration in terms ofthe judgment. He said the appeal FAO (OS) 48/. 91 was limited only forseeking extension of time and the plaintiff could well have challenged the judgment by filing an appeal at that time. Mr. Kumar said though the presentappeal would be within the period of limitation taking in account the time spentin obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree, but the appeal was filedwithout there being any certified copy of the judgment and decree. He said therewas no reason, therefore, why the appeal could not have been filed earlier andat least when FAO (OS) 48/91 was filed and heard. According to him, appealwas filed when time for deposit of the amount under the judgment hadalready expired. Mr. Kumar said that the approach of the plaintiff has throughout been dishonest and in this connection he REFERRED TO to the affidavit of theplaintiff filed in pursuance to the Court s order relevant portion of which hasbeen reproduced above. Mr. Kumar drew our attention to the certificate ofincorporation of M/s. Peacock Farms (P) Ltd. which company was registeredon 7/09/1988, with two shareholders, namely, Amarjit Singh Bakshiand Kanwaljit Singh. Bakshi, both sons of Mr. S. S. Bakshi. We find theplaintiff who is son of Mr. H. S. Grover is stranger to this company. Theauthorised share capital of this company is Rs. 1,00,000. 00 divided into 1000equity shares of Rs. 100. 00 each. Bakshi, both sons of Mr. S. S. Bakshi. We find theplaintiff who is son of Mr. H. S. Grover is stranger to this company. Theauthorised share capital of this company is Rs. 1,00,000. 00 divided into 1000equity shares of Rs. 100. 00 each. This fact would itself show that the affidavitfiled by the plaintiff is a false document. The fact that the plaintiff did notdisclose as to how he intended to make arrangement in -the payment of thesale consideration when specifically asked to do so and in fact filed a falseaffidavit, would go in a long way to demonstrate the strength of argument ofmr. Kumar that the plaintiff had no money and he just wanted to entangle thevaluable property of the defendant in the litigation for some ulterior purposeand without himself suffering any loss for having not to pay the sale consideration. ( 10 ) IN our view the learned Single Judge has taken correct view ofthe matter considering the facts and circumstances of the case. We have beenunable to find any error in the judgment for us to interfere. The learnedsingle Judge has considered all the relevant circumstances. As noted above,the Court has, while decreeing a suit for specific performance, discretion requiring the purchaser to deposit the sale consideration in Court. Explanation toclause (e) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is quite relevant on thispoint. A Bench of this Court in M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajinder Singh and Another, 1989 (3) Delhi Lawyer 268 (DB), had to say asunder:- "section 16 will apply to all suits for specific performance,including a suit falling under Section 12. It is the provisions ofsection 16 which stipulate as to what has to be averred in the plaintby the plaintiff. Unless and until it is averred that the plaintiffis ready and willing to perform the contract, a suit for specificperformance will not be decreed. What is important to note is thatthe explanation specifically provides that it is not essential for theplaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit the moneyin Court, except when so directed by the Court. Normally, therefore, no money is to be tendered and it is only in cases where thecourt feels that, though an averment may have been made in theplaint as postulated by explanation to Section 16, the plaintiff maynot actually have the money to pay the consideration. Normally, therefore, no money is to be tendered and it is only in cases where thecourt feels that, though an averment may have been made in theplaint as postulated by explanation to Section 16, the plaintiff maynot actually have the money to pay the consideration. Therefore,in order to bind the plaintiff or to satisfy itself about the truthfulnessof the averment, the Court may direct the plaintiff to deposit themoney in Court. This course, in our view, should be adoptedrarely, and only when the Court is of the opinion that the avermentof the plaintiff being ready and willing to perform the contract maynot be quite true. " ( 11 ) WE find this is one of those cases where discretion has been veryrightly exercised by the learned Single Judge requiring the plaintiff to depositthe balance of sale consideration. In any case the amount so deposited is notbeing paid over to the defendant at this stage. There is no infringement of theprovisions of Section 55 (1 ) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act either. We agreewith the impugned judgment and decree and find no merit in the appeal anddismiss the same.