Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1-ap-pellant against the judgment and decree dated 13-3-1992 passed by the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Chas, Bokaro, in Title suit No.45 of 1988 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for specific performance of contract has been decreed. 2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant and defendant-respondent No.2 for a decree for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property consisting of house premises with land, out-house and apartments comprised within Plot no.114 situated at Co-operative colony, Bokaro Steel City, in the district of Dhanbad. The plaintiffs case, inter alia, was that she is a medical practitioner employed at Bokaro General hospital and the husband of the plaintiff is also a heart specialist previously employed in the Bokaro General Hospital and now practising as a private medical practitioner. The defendant No.1 appellant is the owner of the house in the co-operative colony and defendant no.2 has been occupying the suit property as a monthly tenant under defendant No.1 appellant. The plaintiffs case was that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with her on 7-4-1987 for sale of the suit property on a consideration of Rs.2.50 lakhs and an agreement to that effect was duly executed on 27-4-1987. The plaintiff, in part performance of the contract, paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the defendant No.1 by a bank draft dated 1-4-1987. There has been specific condition in the agreement that the balance amount of Rs.2.45 lakhs will be payable to the defendant-appellant after deducting payment of dues payable to the co-operative society against the suit property. It was also specifically agreed that the vacant possession of the house shall be given by the appellant to the plaintiff on the date of first instalment and transfer deed of plot together with the house will be executed at the office of the Sub registrar, Chas, after the balance amount is paid latest by the month of july, 1988 by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs further case was that in terms of the agreement, the defendant-appellant wrote a letter dated 29-7-1987 to the secretary of the Bokaro Steel employees Co-operative Society vide his letter dated 6-3-1987 intimating the defendant No.1 about the dues of the co-operative Society at Rs.6,220/45p. The plaintiffs further case was that in terms of the agreement, the defendant-appellant wrote a letter dated 29-7-1987 to the secretary of the Bokaro Steel employees Co-operative Society vide his letter dated 6-3-1987 intimating the defendant No.1 about the dues of the co-operative Society at Rs.6,220/45p. The plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement cleared the entire co-operative dues till August 1987 on behalf of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs further case was that the defendant No.1 wrote to the defendant No.2 on 30-4-1987 and also the defendant No.1 wrote a letter to the plaintiffs husband on 5-6-1987 in which he has specifically "mentioned that the defendant No.2 will be vacating the house by the end of July, 1987. Defendant No.2 was further asked by the defendant No.1 to vacate the suit-property and hand over possession to the plaintiffs husband. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.2 did not vacate the premises inspite of the aforesaid letters written by the defendant No.1 and thus, the defendant No.1 violated the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff further stated that giving vacant possession of the house to the plaintiff by defendant no.1 was a condition precedent for payment of first instalment and for that reason, first instalment was not paid to the defendant No.1. Further case of the plaintiff was that he has already written to defendant No.1 letters dated 23-7-1987 and 13-8-1987 clearly mentioning that the entire balance money is ready and the defendant No.1 has been requested to come to Bokaro to receive the balance consideration on execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hand over vacant possession of the premises to him. The plaintiff therefore claimed that he had been always eager, willing. and ready to perform her part of the contract right from the date of execution of the agreement. The plaintiff has written letters on 1-9-1987 under registered cover and also under certificate of posting calling upon the defendant No.1 to perform his part of the contract as per the agreement and execute registered sale deed in her favour after receiving the balance consideration, but the defendant No.1 failed to execute the registered sale deed. The plaintiffs further case was that she was surprised to receive a letter dated 18-9-1987 whereby the defendant No.1 backed out from the terms of the agreement and unilaterally cancelled the agreement. The plaintiffs further case was that she was surprised to receive a letter dated 18-9-1987 whereby the defendant No.1 backed out from the terms of the agreement and unilaterally cancelled the agreement. The plaintiff then sent a registered Advocates notice dated 18- 10-1987 to the defendant No.1 calling upon him to execute and register the sale deed in her favour and put her into the vacant possession of the house in question. In reply thereof, the defendant No.1 through his advocate, by letter dated 29-10-1987 returned the bank draft of Rs.5001/- mentioning various incorrect, fabricated and wrong facts. By the said letter, the defendant No.1 gave offer to the pilaintiff to purchase the suit premises on as is where is basis within a fortnight of receipt of the reply. The plaintiff immediately replied to the said letter through her advocate refutting the entire allegations made in the said letter sent by the defendant No. l. The plaintiff then surprisingly received the letter dated 30-1-1988 sent by defendant No.1 making baseless and fabricated allega-tions and mentioning about cancellation of the said agreement. The plaintiff having no alternative filcd the instant suit against the defendant for specific performance of contract. The- suit was contested by the defendant no.1 appellant by filing a written statement denying and disputing the allegations made against him in the plaint. The defendant denied to have entered into any alleged written agreement for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.2.50 lakhs. The alleged written agreement dated 27-4-1987 is not a concluded contract and is not enforceable in law. The defendants further case was that, in fact, the price of the suit property was poroposed to be Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) and not Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty-five thousands); the proposal and offer for sale never materialised inasmuch as the agreement dated 27-4-1987 was not executed by all the parties concerned and could not take the shape of a concluded contract. The defendant further questioned and challenged the validity of payment of dues of Rs.6,958.95 P by the defendant to the co-operative society. The defendant further denied that the consideration money was ever tendered to him by the plaintiff and the defendant was not bound to give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant further questioned and challenged the validity of payment of dues of Rs.6,958.95 P by the defendant to the co-operative society. The defendant further denied that the consideration money was ever tendered to him by the plaintiff and the defendant was not bound to give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and her husband were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, inasmuch as they failed to execute the concluded contract. It was further pleaded that the defendant no, 1 had written a letter to the Society for permission to sell the house, but as the plaintiff and her husband failed to execute and conclude the contract, the defendant recalled and cancelled the said letter written to the Society. The alleged proposed agreement dated 27-4-1987 naving not been executed and concluded, the same is not binding on the defendant and is not enforceable in law. The defendant further stated that the alleged letters/notice issued by the plaintiffs advocate are on wrong assumption of the valid contract, but, in fact, the alleged contract was never completed and concluded by executing the same by the parties to the agreement. The defendant further pleaded that in reply to the notice of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 even at that stage gave a fresh offer without prejudice, to purchase the house on as is where is basis and on a payment of full consideration amount as agreed earlier, but the plaintiff failed to accept and act on the said offer. Besides above, the defendant No.1 in his written statement further pleaded that he decided to permanently settle at Bhilai and to construct a house there after selling the suit property to any prospective buyer. It was stated that Dr. Sushil kumar, husband of the plaintiff being eager to buy the house, expressed his desire to purchase the same by letter dated 6-3-1987. The defendant by his reply dated 10-3-87, intimated to Dr. Sushil Kumar that his brother-in-law who was at Bokaro Steel City has also expressed his desire to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.3.75 lakhs, but as the defendant expected rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs), he had turned down the offer of his brother-in-law. The defendant by his reply dated 10-3-87, intimated to Dr. Sushil Kumar that his brother-in-law who was at Bokaro Steel City has also expressed his desire to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.3.75 lakhs, but as the defendant expected rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs), he had turned down the offer of his brother-in-law. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 also expressed his desire to purchase the suit property and wanted to know the price and in reply, the defendant intimated that he expected the price of Rs.4,00,000/- for the suit property. In the meantime, through intervention of the friends, defendant No.1 proposed on 7-4-1987 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and her husband, subject to settlement of the price and modalities of the payment. Later on, it had been discussed and settled that the price should be fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs would be paid in cash to the defendant No.1 and the sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs should be paid in instalments, and the deed of transfer would be written showing the price as rs.2.5 lakhs only. It is alleged by the defendant No.1 that the manner and time of payment had been settled and written by the husband of the plaintiff dr. Sushil Kumar in his own hand. The defendant further pleaded that while discussing the further details, the plaintiffs husband laid special stress on getting vacant possession of the house immediately as he had desire to start his independent practice from the said house. It was, therefore, decided that dr. Sushil Kumar would pay Rs.5,000/-as an advance before formal agreement is written and balance amount of Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and for-tyfive thousand) that would be written in the deed would be paid by instalments to the defendant No.1; the first instalment would be paid soon after the vacant possession of the house is given to Dr. Sushil Kumar and the balance would be paid as per the agreed schedule as stated above. It was also decided that Dr. Sushil Kumar would be required to pay, besides the agreed price of Rs.4 lakhs, a sum of Rs.1.000/- per month during the period of the aforesaid month of the first instalment as monthly and last instalment. It was further decided that Dr. It was also decided that Dr. Sushil Kumar would be required to pay, besides the agreed price of Rs.4 lakhs, a sum of Rs.1.000/- per month during the period of the aforesaid month of the first instalment as monthly and last instalment. It was further decided that Dr. S. Kumar would deposit dues of the Society payable by the defendant No.1 and it would be adjusted toward the agreed price. The defendants further case was that in course of the aforesaid negotiation, agreement had been prepared on 27-4-1987, proposed to be executed by dr. S. Kumar, his wife plaintiff and defendant No. l. The name of the plaintiff was introduced by Dr. Sushil Kumar as he intended to purchase the house jointly with her. The said agreement however, had not been executed by Dr. S. Kumar with a plea that he would take the agreement with him for further study and would thereafter execute the same. Dr. Sushil Kumar thereafter began to vacillate and wanted that the vacant possession of the house must be a condition precedent for the proposed purchase, otherwise, it would not be possible for him to purchase the house. Thus, the alleged agreement remained in the proposal stage and had never been executed by Dr. S. Kumar. The learned court below framed the following is-sues:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation? (iv) Is the suit barred by the principles of waiver, estoppel and res judicata? (v) Has the plaintiff properly valued the suit and paid sufficient Court fee? (vi) Is the suit barred under the 1 provision of Specific Relief Act? (vii) Is the suit bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties? (viii) Whether there has been concluded contract in between plaintiff and defendant No.1 for sell of suit land in favour of plaintiff? (ix) Whether any arrangement in between defendants during subsistence of the concluded contract with plaintiff is legal, valid, operative and enforceable for the suit land? (x) Whether defendant No.1 can legally cancel the agreement unilaterally at his sweet-will for suit land after concluded contract with plaintiff? (xi) Whether defendant No. l has defaulted in performing his own part of obligations as per concluded contract in executing sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff for suit land? (x) Whether defendant No.1 can legally cancel the agreement unilaterally at his sweet-will for suit land after concluded contract with plaintiff? (xi) Whether defendant No. l has defaulted in performing his own part of obligations as per concluded contract in executing sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff for suit land? (xii) Whether plaintiff is ready to perform her own part of contract in informing the terms of concluded contract for suit land? (xiii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief as claimed for? (xiv) What other relief or reliefs, if any to which the plaintiff is entitled?. 3. The Court below took up issue nos. (viii) and (ix) which are important issue3 and decided it in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The Court below found that Exhibit 3, the Agreement dated 27-4-1987, was a concluded contract between the parties whereby and whereunder defendant No.1 appellant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement. The Court below further came to a finding that the said agreement by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff is legal, valid, operative and enforceable and the said Agreement cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the defendant-appellant. The Court below further found that the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and it was defendant No. l who was defaulter in performing his part of obligations as per the Agree-ment. Accordingly the suit was decreed "by the impugned judgment. 4. Mr. B. B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Agreement dated 27-4-1987 (Exhibit 3) was not a concluded contract inasmuch as from Exhibit F it will appear that the suit property was agreed to be sold at a price of Rs.4,00,000/- and not at a price of Rs.2.50 lakhs as mentioned in the Agreement. According to the learned Counsel, Exhibit F is a document written by the plaintiffs husband in his own pen mentioning that out of Rs.4,00,000/-, 1.50 lakhs shall be paid in cash and Rs.2.50 lakhs shall be paid in the manner stipulated in the Agreement. Mr. According to the learned Counsel, Exhibit F is a document written by the plaintiffs husband in his own pen mentioning that out of Rs.4,00,000/-, 1.50 lakhs shall be paid in cash and Rs.2.50 lakhs shall be paid in the manner stipulated in the Agreement. Mr. Sinha, therefore, submitted that the said agreement (Exhibit 3) cannot be enforced, except with the variations as it was obvious that the Agreement does not contain all the terms and it was not a concluded contract. Mr. Sinha, then submitted that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of obligations contained in the Agreement and revised proposal was given by the appellant to the plaintiff to purchase the suit property on "as is where is basis" and the said proposal although accepted, but not acted upon by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the defendant-appellant had every right to cancel the Agreement. Learned Counsel referred various provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the terms of the Agreement and submitted that the only remedy available to the plaintiff-respondent was to recover the amount advanced to the ap-pellant and not to sue for a decree for specific performance of contract. 5. On the other hand, Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent (plaintiff in the Court below) submitted that Exhibit 3 was a concluded contract whereby defendant-appellant agreed to sell the suit property at a price of Rs.2.50 lakhs and since the date of the Agreement the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to purchase the suit property, but it was the defendant who backed out from the terms of the Agreement and evaded execution and registration of the sale-deed on one pretext or the other. So far Exhibit F is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that the said document is undated and un-signed document which was written much before the Agreement dated 27-4-1987. After negotiation was finalised in between the plaintiff and her husband on one hand and the defendant-appellant on the other the Agreement dated 27-4-1987 came into existence. Learned counsel drew my attention to various exhibits and submitted that the plaintiff-respondent performed and fulfilled each and every part of the Agreement and always expressed her readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property. According to the learned Counsel, the Court below came to a correct finding and the suit was rightly decreed against the defendant-appellant. 6. Learned counsel drew my attention to various exhibits and submitted that the plaintiff-respondent performed and fulfilled each and every part of the Agreement and always expressed her readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property. According to the learned Counsel, the Court below came to a correct finding and the suit was rightly decreed against the defendant-appellant. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, the following two important points emerge for consideration: (i) Whether the Agreement dated 27-4-1987 is a concluded contract in between the parties and whether the suit property was agreed to be sold at a price of Rs.2.50 lakhs or Rs.4,00,000/-? (iii) Whether the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and fulfilled the terms of the Agreement? 7. Since the aforesaid two points are interlinked, the same are considered together by me. The specific case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 entered into an Agreement dated 27-4-1987 whereby he agreed to sell the suit property on a total consideration of Rs.2.50 lakhs. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid and the balance was agreed to be paid as per the terms of the Agreement. As against this, the defendant-appellant in his written statement has pleaded that the Agreement dated 27-4-1987 was not a concluded Agreement, inasmuch as in fact the property was agreed to be sold at a price of Rs.4,00,000/-. For better appreciation paragraph 20 (f) of the written statement is reproduced herein-below: "20. . . . . . . (f) In the meantime through the intervention of the friends, the defendant no.1 had tentatively proposed on 7-4-1987 to sell the suit house to Dr. Sushil kumar and his wife subject to settlement of the price and the modalities of payment etc. later on, it had been discussed and settled that the price should be fixed at rs, four lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs would be paid in cash to the defendant No.1 and the sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs should be paid in instalments and the deed of transfer would be written for the price at Rs.2.50 lakhs only. The manner and time of payment had been settled and written by Dr. The manner and time of payment had been settled and written by Dr. Sushil kumar in his own hand which were as fol-lows:- 7_705_BLJ2_1997.htm The said writing of Dr. Sushil Kumar would be produced in Court at the time of hearing. 8 Now the question falls for consideration is that whether the defendant-appellant has been able to establish that the suit property was in fact agreed to be sold at a price of Rs.4,00,000/-. I will look into the various documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. As stated above, exhibit 3 is the Agreement dated 27-4-1987 in which the price of the suit property has been fixed at Rs.2.50 lakhs. Immediately after the Agreement the defendant-appellant wrote a letter dated 30-4-1987 to the tenant who was in occupation of the suit property asking him to vacate the same as the defendant has decided to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The said document is Exhibit 4. Exhibit 2/a is the letter written by the defendant-appellant to the Bokaro Steel Employees Cooperative House Construction Society ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Cooperative Society) seeking permission to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The said letter is dated 29-7-1987. It is worth to be mentioned here that under the Agreement the defendant was required to obtain permission from the Cooperative Society for the sale of the land to the plaintiff. Exhibit 2/b is the letter dated 6-8-1987 of the cooperative Society whereby the defendant was directed to pay the dues of Rs.6,220.45 paise, on payment of which his application for permission shall be considered. It appears that a sum of Rs.6,958.95 paise was paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant-appellant, which is evident from Exhibit 8, the receipt granted by the Cooperative society. This fact has not been denied by the appellant. Exhibit 2/c is the letter dated 17-9-1987 issued by the cooperative Society granting permission to the defendant for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.)Shila Narayan. The letter further speaks that the Board resolved to transfer the membership in favour of the plaintiff. Exhibits 4 and 5 are the correspondences made by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the tenant-defendant No.2 for vacating the suit property and handover possession to the plaintiff. (Mrs.)Shila Narayan. The letter further speaks that the Board resolved to transfer the membership in favour of the plaintiff. Exhibits 4 and 5 are the correspondences made by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the tenant-defendant No.2 for vacating the suit property and handover possession to the plaintiff. Exhibits 8/a and 8/b are the two other receipts granted by the cooperative Society giving details of the payments made by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant-appellant. Exhibit 5/b is the letter dated 1-9-1987 written by the plaintiff to the defendant-appellant stating, inter alia, that all the dues of the Cooperative Society have been paid as per the terms of the agreement, and the plaintiff further referred her earlier letter dated 17-8-1987 sent under registered cover indicating that she was ready with the money and requested the defendant to come to Bokaro and to hand over vacant possession of the suit property. By the said letter dated 1-9-1987 the plaintiff further informed the defendant that she has fulfilled all the terms of the Agreement and her part of the obligations and the defendant was called upon to execute and register the sale-deed in her favour. Exhibit 12 is also one of the important documents, i. e Advocates notice dated 16th October, 1987, sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant-appellant. By the said notice all the facts have been very clearly and specifically stated, namely, the suit property was agreed to be sold at Rs.2.50 lakhs by the Agreement dated 27-4-1987 and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid as advance. It was also stated in that notice that the balance amount of Rs.45 lakhs was to be paid after deducting the payments of the dues to the cooperative Society. After stating the other facts, the defendant was asked by that notice to execute and register the sale-deed. The said Advocates notice was replied by defendant No. l through his Advocates M/s. Khaitan and Associates. The said reply is dated 29-10-1987 and has been marked as Exhibit 13. In the said reply, it is very interesting to note that there is no whisper about the fact that the suit property was agreed to be sold at Rs.4,00,000/-and not at a price of Rs.2.50 lakhs rather it was admitted that the suit property was agreed to be sold at Rs.50 lakhs. In the said reply, it is very interesting to note that there is no whisper about the fact that the suit property was agreed to be sold at Rs.4,00,000/-and not at a price of Rs.2.50 lakhs rather it was admitted that the suit property was agreed to be sold at Rs.50 lakhs. The relevant portion of the reply is re-produced hereinbelow: "without prejudice to what is stated hereinabove and fully relying thereon and deserving the right of compensation and/or damages from your client, our chient is still ready and willing to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of your client for the agreed consideration sum of rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty thousand only ). If the said amount is paid by your client, our client can execute the deed of conveyance in favour of your client. Please confirm if your client is ready and willing to purchase the said premises on as is where is basis. If our client does not receive any response from your client within a fortnight from the date of receipt hereof, our client will treat the deal as closed. " 9. The plaintiff immediately replied by sending another letter dated 12-11-1987 through her Advocate-Mr. Brajendra Krishna Prasad, which has been marked as Exhibit 12/a. The relevant portion of the said letter is quoted hereinbelow: "my client is still ready, eager and willing to purchase the house as is where is basis which includes the position existing including structures, fixtures, finings etc. as existing today. My client has been exercising option to purchase the same for the agreed consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. My client has to obtain Court fee stamp on the aforesaid amounts which will take at least one month time. Kindly let my client know when your client is proposing to execute the registered sale deed after Court fee stamps are obtained from treasury. The date may be intimated considering the aforesaid facts so that my client may apply for obtaining Court fee stamps for execution of registered sale deed by your client. In case your client does not intimate the date within a fortnight from the receipt of this reply, then it will be treated that your client is simply wants to delay the matter. In case your client does not intimate the date within a fortnight from the receipt of this reply, then it will be treated that your client is simply wants to delay the matter. The court fee stamps will be of higher value and as such intimate my client date so that she may apply for obtaining Court fee stamps and thereafter sale deed may be executed. " 10. It further appears that the plaintiff sent another notice dated 2-1-1988 through her Advocate, which has been marked as Exhibit 12/b. In the said letter it is stated that despite the earlier notice (Exhibit 12/a) and other letters, the defendant did not reply nor intimated her as to when he is ready to execute and register the sale deed. By the said notice the plaintiff again requested the defendant to give the tentative date so that necessary arrangement could be done for execution and registration of the sale deed. It further appears that a draft copy of the sale deed was also sent alongwith the notice to the defendant for approval. Exhibit 13/b is the notice dated 30-1-1988 sent by the defendant through his Advocate stating inter alia, that since the plaintiff failed to pay 75% of the agreed consideration amount by 23-12-1987, the agreement stood cancelled. Exhibit -A, b, A / 1, A / 2, A / 3, B / 1, are the correspondences between the parties before the agreement regarding negotiation for sale of the suit property. The said letters are prior to 27-4-1987. Exhibit F upon which the defendant put heavy reliance is in the form of a Chut-ka written on a paper, said to be in the pen of the plaintiffs husband. In the said Chutka nothing has been mentioned about the sale of the property. Only some amount is mentioned therein. The said document is un-signed and un-dated. Exhibit B/5 is the letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff. The said letter does not speak anything about the price of the suit property payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. Exhibit B series are also correspondences. Exhibits C, C/1, D and D/1 are the notices and the reply exchanged by the parties through their Advocates, which have also been filed by the plaintiff and discussed by me hereinabove. The said letter does not speak anything about the price of the suit property payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. Exhibit B series are also correspondences. Exhibits C, C/1, D and D/1 are the notices and the reply exchanged by the parties through their Advocates, which have also been filed by the plaintiff and discussed by me hereinabove. From all these documentary evidence particularly the exchange of notices, and replies by the parties through their Advocates, it does not appear that the defendant-appellant ever whispered that price of the suit property was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- and not Rs.2.50 lakhs. As noticed above, in the advocates notice sent by the defendant it was specifically admitted that the defendant was ready and willing to sell the property at the agreed price of Rs.2.50 lakhs and the plaintiff was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.2.45 lakhs within the stipulated period. 11. I have also gone through the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and even if there are some contradictory statements came from the mouth of the witnesses, the same cannot be relied upon or given preference over the authentic documentary evidence. 12. As stated above the stand of the defendant-appellant is that actually the price was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- and it was agreed that Rs.1.50 lakhs would be paid in cash and Rs.2.50 lakhs would be shown in the agreement for the purpose of registration. Even assuming the stand of the appellant to be correct whether such type of contract is valid and the Court shall recognise that contract as valid and enforceable. I have no doubt in my mind that such type of contracts are not only unconscionable, unfair, unreasonable and opposed to public policy and are void, but also against the provisions of the Indian stamp Act and Registration Act. The court should not, therefore, accept such type of stand put by the defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of immovable property. 13. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence discussed hereinabove, I am, therefore, of the firm view that the findings arrived at by the Court below on issue Nos. (viii) and (ix) are perfectly legal and valid. 13. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence discussed hereinabove, I am, therefore, of the firm view that the findings arrived at by the Court below on issue Nos. (viii) and (ix) are perfectly legal and valid. I, therefore, hold that exhibit 3 is a concluded Agreement between the parties whereby the suit property was agreed to be sold at a price of Rs.2.50 lakhs. I further confirm the finding of the Court below and hold that the plaintiff-respondent fulfilled her part of the obligations under the Agreement and has always expressed her readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property in terms of the Agreement. 14. In view of the findings arrived at by me, as aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Court below on the other issues which are incidental in nature. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I also hold that the cancellation of the Agreement by the defendant is illegal and un-war-ranted in law. The Agreement (Exhibit 3) is valid and enforceable Agreement and the defendant-appellant is bound to fulfil the Agreement by executing and registering the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.