Judgment : Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J. Plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed C.S.No.236 of 1981 for specific performance of the contract or in the alternative directing defendants 1 to 4 to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.80,300 and further interest of Rs.59,900 at 12 per cent per annum. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: Defendants 1 to 4 are the co-owners of the suit premises. The first defendant has been given the right of enjoyment during her lifetime without powers of alteration and defendants 2 to 4 have been given absolute interest after the lifetime of the first defendant. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale between with defendants 1 to 4 on 212. 1975 in respect of the suit property for a price of Rs.1,70,000 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.25,000 as advance on the date of agreement. The sale transaction was agreed to be completed and the sale deed to be registered on or about 33. 1977. It was also agreed that the first defendant would execute a deed of release of her life interest in the property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 accelerating the interest of defendants 2 to 4 to absolute interest within a week from the date of the above agreement and the plaintiff would pay a further sum of Rs.25,000 to the first defendant on the execution and registration of the said deed of release out of the purchase money. It was also agreed that the balance of the purchase money would be paid to defendants 2 to 4 at the time of registration of the sale deed in the presence of the registering officer. Defendants 1 to 4 had delivered certain title deeds for examination by the plaintiffs legal adviser at the time of execution of the above agreement. Right from the beginning, defendants 1 to 4 did not keep up to the terms of the agreement strictly. Even though the first defendant did not execute a deed of release, the plaintiff made several payments by way of further advance from time to time. Despite the repeated requests from the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 did not take necessary steps for procuring permission from the Income-tax Department and also did not obtain encumbrance certificate for finalising the sale transaction. Despite the repeated requests from the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 did not take necessary steps for procuring permission from the Income-tax Department and also did not obtain encumbrance certificate for finalising the sale transaction. Time for completion of the sale transaction was extended by mutual agreement between the parties upto 312. 1977. The plaintiff wrote letters to defendants 1 to 4 to complete the sale transaction. Defendants 1 to 4 replied to the plaintiff on 13. 1978 admitting the receipt of advance amount and they had stated that they had entered into an agreement with the sixth defendant and received a sum of Rs.5,000 from them. But, that agreement was not pursued and defendants 1 to 4 had also stated that they were unable to complete the transaction having received notice form the court in Application No.910 of 1978 in C.S.No.106 of 1978 restraining them from disposing of the property. The plaintiff subsequently came to know that defendants 1 to 4 have entered into a subsequent agreement with the fifth defendant for sale of their property for a price of Rs.1,75,000. Defendants 1 to 4 had stated that they would contest the application in getting the interim injunction vacate and pursue the sale transaction with the plaintiff. Then time for completion of the sale transaction was extended upto 33. 1978. The injunction granted in Application No.910 of 1978 was made absolute. C.S.No.106 of 1978 filed by defendants 5 and 6 is still pending and defendants 1 to 4 are retaining the advances made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has impleaded defendants 5 and 6 as parties to the present suit to enable the plaintiff to have a binding adjudication in their presence. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff did not approach the court earlier because of the pendency of the Suit C.S.No.106 of 1978. The first defendant has purported to have released her rights in the suit property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 by executing a release deed dated 27. 1981 and thereafter defendants 2 to 4 purported to sell the property to defendants 5 and 6. Since the limitation is likely to set in the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence, the suit is filed. 1981 and thereafter defendants 2 to 4 purported to sell the property to defendants 5 and 6. Since the limitation is likely to set in the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence, the suit is filed. So, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract or for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,300 with further interest of Rs.59,900 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 3. The second defendant filed written statement contending as follows: Under the settlement deed, the first defendant was the life estate holder of the suit property and after her life time, remainder vested with the children viz., defendants 2 and 3 being the sons and the fourth defendant wife of Jagannathan. At the time of agreement of sale, it was agreed that the life estate holder must execute the deed of release and the plaintiff must make his own arrangement to get such deed and the plaintiff also agreed for that and paid an advance of Rs.25,000. The time granted for registration of the document expired on 33. 1977 and time was the essence of the contract. Sherfuddin Ahmed as partner of the plaintiff who took the title deeds due to his incapacity to complete the transaction brought one V.A.Matheen to advance a sum of Rs.5,000 and also made the defendants to sign a receipt and agreement dating them and simultaneously made the defendants to consent to grant time till 33. 1978. Sherfuddin Ahmed had been representing the plaintiff firm who is a tenant under the first defendant in respect of the suit property. At one stage, due to misunderstanding, they had the said V.A.Matheen instituted a suit in C.S.No.106 of 1978 for specific performance as if the letters and agreement made to be signed by the defendants as documents were intended to be acted upon. The defendants are fighting the case C.S.No.106 of 1978. There is no real agreement between the plaintiff and defendants in C.S.No.106 of 1978. The said agreement was not intended to be acted upon. The plaintiff failed and neglected to complete the sale deed as contemplated in the agreement and had been postponing the execution of the sale and the time expired by 33. 1977. The plaintiff, on 6. There is no real agreement between the plaintiff and defendants in C.S.No.106 of 1978. The said agreement was not intended to be acted upon. The plaintiff failed and neglected to complete the sale deed as contemplated in the agreement and had been postponing the execution of the sale and the time expired by 33. 1977. The plaintiff, on 6. 1977 wanted this defendant to execute an agreement of sale in favour of the fifth defendant assuring that the sale transaction shall be for Rs.2,00,000 and the plaintiff will take necessary steps to get the life estate of the first defendant compensated suitably. On that false hope given by the plaintiff, the defendants signed the agreement and in some ante-dated documents. The plaintiff made the fifth defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 as advance sale price on the date of signing the agreement by the fifth defendant i.e., on 15. 1977 and simultaneously he took the signature of the defendants in the original agreement dated 212. 1975 with an endorsement. By mutual consent of all the parties hereto the time of completion and registration was extended upto 312. 1977 and by another endorsement dating it as 212. 1977 by mutual consent all the parties hereto the time of completion and registration was extended to 33. 1978. Sherfuddin Ahmed made it clear that the agreement made with the fifth defendant is only a sham and nominal document. The way in which the said partner did, it is clear that his intention was not to give effect to the original agreement entered into by him and thereby he abandoned the agreement and simultaneously created the made to believe story that the fifth defendant has paid a sum of Rs.5,000 for purchasing the property. Sherfuddin Ahmed was fully aware that the defendants have already entered into an agreement of sale with Ramco Leather Industries for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,75,000 on 14. 1977 and also received an advance of Rs.75,000 The plaintiff filed the suit vexatiously. The letter passed by the said Sherfuddin Ahmed will clearly disprove the falsity of the plaint in C.S.No.106 of 1978 as well as this suit. Both the agreements were abandoned and not given effect to and the plaintiff is entitled to get back the money and not for specific performance of the contract. The letter passed by the said Sherfuddin Ahmed will clearly disprove the falsity of the plaint in C.S.No.106 of 1978 as well as this suit. Both the agreements were abandoned and not given effect to and the plaintiff is entitled to get back the money and not for specific performance of the contract. There was no agreement to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000 at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff or the fifth defendant is not entitled to prevent the execution of sale deed to third parties. The first defendant has also started refusing to sign any agreement and insisted for life estate. The plaintiff is not entitled to maintain any suit. Having fraudulently made the defendants to part with the title deeds, now the plaintiff states falsely as if he returned the title deeds. The defendants entered into an agreement with Ramco Leather Industries by giving copies of documents and taking into confidence of the assurances given by the said Sherfuddin Ahmed. The fifth defendant is none other than the nominee of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has abandoned the contract and only with full knowledge and help of the plaintiff, the defendants had entered into another agreement with Ramco Leather Industries. The endorsements or extensions were made only for the purpose of securing the money paid and not for specific performance. The plaintiff who did not wish to oblige them every time, introduced them to the fifth defendant and the plaintiff understands that a sum of Rs.5,000 was advanced to defendants 1 to 4 clearly shows the abandonment of contract by the plaintiff as early as 15. 1977. The plaintiff has got no means to purchase the property. Since the plaintiff abandoned the contract, the defendants had to sell the property to some third parties. So, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale. 4. Defendants 5 and 6 have filed written statement contending as follows: The sixth defendant was a registered partnership firm consisting of the fifth defendant and has father Janab V.M.Kalilur Rahman as partners. On the death of Janab V.M.Kalilu Rahman in June, 1978, the firm and fifth defendant is carrying on the said concern as sole proprietor in the same name and style. The plaintiff is not a registered firm. No agreement was entered between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 on 212. On the death of Janab V.M.Kalilu Rahman in June, 1978, the firm and fifth defendant is carrying on the said concern as sole proprietor in the same name and style. The plaintiff is not a registered firm. No agreement was entered between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 on 212. 1975 in respect of the suit property. The agreement of sale is a fraudulent one and created by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 in collusion and connivance with each other brought about by them with a view to defeat the rights of these defendants under the agreement of sale which is the subject matter in C.S.No.106 of 1978. These defendants deny the payments made by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff cannot derive any right under the agreement of sale. The plaintiff is a tenant under the first defendant. The erstwhile firm of V.K.Matheen & Co. was in turn tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises No.16, Kumarappa Chetty Street, Periamet, Madras-3. In or about the beginning of May, 1977, the fifth defendant was in search of a property in the same locality for immediate purchase and occupation for them. The partners of the plaintiff firm on coming to know of the same introduced the husband of the first defendant to the fifth defendant and also took active part in the negotiations for the sale of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile firm of V.K.Matheen & Co. It was agreed between the first defendant for herself and on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 on the one hand and the erstwhile firm of M/s.V.K.Matheen & Co., that the sale price of the suit property was to be Rs.2,00.000 free of encumbrances and that vacant possession of the property would be given to the purchaser at the time of registration of the sale deed. Pursuant thereto the firm of V.K.Matheen & Co. paid Rs.5,000 as advance by cheque on 15. 1977 to the first defendant and she issued a stamped receipt for the same. That receipt was attested by V.A.Sherfuddin one of the partners of the plaintiff firm. Subsequently, the plaintiff refused to vacate the suit property. As such it was agreed between defendants 1 to 4 on the one hand the fifth defendant acting on behalf of the then firm of V.K.Matheen & Co. That receipt was attested by V.A.Sherfuddin one of the partners of the plaintiff firm. Subsequently, the plaintiff refused to vacate the suit property. As such it was agreed between defendants 1 to 4 on the one hand the fifth defendant acting on behalf of the then firm of V.K.Matheen & Co. on the other hand to modify the agreement dated 15. 1977 and execute a fresh agreement and pursuant thereto the sale agreement dated 6. 1977 which is the subject-matter in C.S.No.106 of 1978 on the file of this Court was entered introducing the sale price to Rs.1,75,000 taking into account that defendants 1 to 4 would be unable to deliver vacant possession of the portion in the occupation of the plaintiff and also investment, loss of interest thereon, time and expense that would be involved in obtaining vacant possession from the plaintiff. If really there was in existence any valid agreement of sale in respect of the suit property dated 212. 1975, the partners of the plaintiff would not have taken part in the negotiations for the sale of the same to the fifth and sixth defendants or one of the partners of the plaintiff would not have attested the receipt dated 15. 1977. The sale agreement involved in C.S.No.106 of 1978 would supercede the first document. The plaintiff is guilty of laches and is not entitled to specific performance of the contract. Defendants 1 to 4 have expressed their inability to complete the sale transaction due to the order of injunction of this Court in C.S.No.106 of 1978 and the present suit is barred by limitation and there is no bona fide on the part of the plaintiff. 5. Theseventh defendant filed written statement contending as follows: This defendant is not aware of the alleged agreement of sale executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. This defendant by a deed of sale purchased the property from defendants 2 to 4. The encumbrance certificate obtained by this defendant did not reveal any subsisting encumbrance over the property. The original relinquishment deed was also handed over to this defendant. Defendants 2 to 4 also represented that there was no agreement of sale in favour of any third party. The encumbrance certificate obtained by this defendant did not reveal any subsisting encumbrance over the property. The original relinquishment deed was also handed over to this defendant. Defendants 2 to 4 also represented that there was no agreement of sale in favour of any third party. Defendants 2 to 4 have also agreed to give vacant possession within a period of three months from the date of execution of the sale deed and a sum of Rs.85,000 was retained by this defendant to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. This defendant was not aware of pendency of the suit. The first defendant had surrendered her life estate in favour of defendants 2 to 4 by release deed dated 27. 1981 and thereafter sold the property in favour of this defendant. This defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the alleged agreement of sale and pendency of the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of the contract. 6. Defendants 5 and 6 in C.S.No.236 of 1981 as plaintiffs had filed C.S.No.106 of 1978 for the relief of specific performance of the contract in respect of the agreement dated 6. 1977 executed in favour of the first plaintiff therein by the defendants therein and for possession of the suit property. 7. Second defendants therein filed written statement for himself and on behalf of defendants 1, 3 and 4 therein resisting the suit. The fifth defendant therein filed separate written statement raising some contentions as raised in C.S.No.236 of 1981 wherein he figures as seventh defendant. 8. Both the suits were tried jointly by the learned Single Judge who framed issues and at the conclusion of trial, held that the plaintiffs in C.S.No.106 of 1978 are not entitled to specific performance of the contract and dismissed the suit and decreed C.S.No.236 of 1981 for the alternative relief of directing defendants 1 to 4 and 7 to pay a sum of Rs.80,300 and a further interest of Rs.59,900 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation with proportionate cost to the plaintiff and dismissed C.S.No.236 of 1981 in other respects. 9. Theappeal is directed against the judgment and decree in C.S.No.236 of 1981. 10. 9. Theappeal is directed against the judgment and decree in C.S.No.236 of 1981. 10. In this appeal, the appellant, contends that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract by virtue of the agreement of sale in his favour and the sale in favour of the fifth respondent i.e., 7th defendant in the suit is not valid. 11. Point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract in respect of the agreement of sale. .12. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed in his favour on 212. 1975 under which defendants 1 to 4 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff free of all encumbrances. The learned single Judge has granted the alternative relief of money decree directing the defendants to pay the amount as stated in the decree. 13. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the alternative prayer granted in the suit is not proper and the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract. He submitted that apart from the advance of Rs.25,000 paid on the date of agreement of sale the plaintiff made several payments on various dates from 21. 1976 to 24. 1978 totalling to Rs.59,900 inclusive of the advance amount of Rs.25,000 and the time for execution of the sale deed was also extended twice upto 33. 1978 and so, the time is not the essence of the contract and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and only defendants 1 to 4 failed to perform their part of the contract by not obtaining the encumbrance certificate, income tax clearance certificate and also by not getting the release deed of the first defendant for relinquishing her lift estate over the property which term was agreed at the time of execution of the agreement of sale enabling defendants 2 to 4 to get absolute right over the suit property for executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 14. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there are laches only on the part of defendants 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 did not take necessary steps for completing the sale transaction and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract. 15. 14. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there are laches only on the part of defendants 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 did not take necessary steps for completing the sale transaction and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract. 15. On the other hand, counsel for the defendants contended that the alternative relief has been granted by the learned single Judge in the suit and that cannot be interfered with and the plaintiff abandoned the contract and he has not come to court with clean hands. 16. Ex.P-3 is the agreement of sale entered between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 on 212. 1975 under which defendants 1 to 4 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and it was agreed that the transaction should be completed and sale deed registered on or about 33. 1977. By consent of all parties, time was extended on two occasions in the first instance upto 312. 1977 and then upto 33. 1978. The endorsements have also been made to this effect in Ex.P-3. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.25,000 on the date of agreement of sale and as per Ex.P-17 and Exs.P-4 to 14, the plaintiff has paid further amounts towards the sale consideration on several occasions from 21. 1976 to 24. 1978 and inclusive of the advance amount of Rs.25,000, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.59,900. Since the defendants have received further amounts towards sale consideration on several occasions which went upto 24. 1978 beyond the extended period for completing the sale transaction, it can be safely concluded that the parties never intended that time was the essence of the contract. So, the time is not the essence of the contract. .17. The evidence of P.Ws. is that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the suit property and they were having necessary funds to purchase the suit property. P.W.1 states that he wrote to defendants 1 and 2 for completion of sale on 3. 1978 under Ex.P-31 enclosing the draft sale deed for approval and return. For that the defendants sent reply under Ex.P-32 stating that they are agreeable to complete the transaction, but they are unable to do so due to the courts order. P.W.1 states that he wrote to defendants 1 and 2 for completion of sale on 3. 1978 under Ex.P-31 enclosing the draft sale deed for approval and return. For that the defendants sent reply under Ex.P-32 stating that they are agreeable to complete the transaction, but they are unable to do so due to the courts order. Exs.P-33 notice and Ex.P-34 notice were sent by the seventh defendant and defendants 2 to 4 respectively stating that the seventh defendant had purchased the suit property. For that the plaintiff had sent reply to the seventh defendant under Ex.P-35 and to the first defendant under Ex.P-36. Under Ex.P-35, the plaintiff had stated that the purchase by the seventh defendant is not genuine. The plaintiff has asked the first defendant under Ex.P-36 to collect rent since the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit property. All these documents Exs.P-33 to P-36 are of the year 1973. The plaintiff did not take any steps for completing the sale transaction after Ex.P-31 even though he got all the title deeds and encumbrance certificate at the time of sale agreement. P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly admitted in their evidence that the documents such as original deeds and encumbrance certificate were delivered to them. 18. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff has abandoned his right and he has not taken any steps and he has come forward with the suit only in the year 1981. 119. The evidence of P.Ws. is that even before the agreement, they were satisfied about the title of the vendors defendants 1 to 4 and there was no need or necessity for scrutinising the title deed anymore after their entering into the agreement. The first defendant had not executed the release deed as agreed since she was a life estate holder. So the evidence of P.Ws. is that the defendants did not have produce all documents. the release deed executed by the first defendant as well as the income tax clearance certificate and urban land clearance certificate and as they did not produce the documents, the execution of the sale deed could not be carried out. P.W.2 States that he only orally asked about the release deed. It is evident that the plaintiff did not take steps in writing from the due execution of the release deed by the first defendant. 120. The evidence of P.Ws. P.W.2 States that he only orally asked about the release deed. It is evident that the plaintiff did not take steps in writing from the due execution of the release deed by the first defendant. 120. The evidence of P.Ws. shows that all the original title deeds and encumbrance certificate were delivered to the plaintiff at the time of Ex.P-3. P.W.1 states that those documents were taken back by the defendants. Their evidence proves that the title deeds were examined by the plaintiff, but the first defendant did not execute the release deed as agreed and so, it was not possible to complete the sale transaction. P.W.2 states that he does not know who advised Devamma to eliminate herself and release her title and interest to her children. In Ex.P-3, it is stated that the first defendant should eliminate herself from the sale deed and release her right to her children since she is a life estate holder and the releasing and surrendering and giving up the life estate would enable defendants 2 to 4 to sell the property. The plaintiff relies upon this condition and states that since the release deed was not executed, the transaction could not be completed. The plaintiff did not take necessary steps by sending notice to the first defendant to execute the release deed. P.W.2 also admitted that apart from the release deed, no other document of title was to be furnished to the plaintiff by the defendants. Even under Ex.P-31, the plaintiff has not asked with regard to the release deed to be executed by the first defendant. The plaintiff has simply stated that he is anxious to complete the transaction. There is no mention with regard to the execution of release deed Ex.P-31. Under Ex.P-31 apart from the income tax clearance certificate, the plaintiff has not asked for any other document since the plaintiff has already got all the other documents from the defendants. Within the time stipulated or within the extended time no steps were taken by the plaintiff with regard to execution of the release deed. The plaintiff made the fifth defendant to enter into agreement of sale with defendants 1 to 4 by paying Rs.5,000. This conduct of the plaintiff establishes that the plaintiff has abandoned his right and he was not interested in completing the sale transaction. 121. The plaintiff made the fifth defendant to enter into agreement of sale with defendants 1 to 4 by paying Rs.5,000. This conduct of the plaintiff establishes that the plaintiff has abandoned his right and he was not interested in completing the sale transaction. 121. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the plaintiff had no means at all to complete the transaction. 122. P.W.2s evidence is that the partners of the plaintiff firm were capable of raising funds individually. For the question put to P.W.2 with regard to availability of money in the bank account of the plaintiff, P.W.2 evidence is that he will have to see the pass book and tell. But, he has not produced the pass book. Even though it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove with regard to the availability of funds by showing pass book, there must be some bona fide on the part of the plaintiff to establish that the plaintiff was having sufficient funds for completing the sale transaction. D.W.1s evidence is that since the plaintiff expressed that he had no funds with him, the sale was not concluded. He further states that ever since the agreement was executed, the defendants were repeatedly demanding money and whenever they gave pressure for money, the plaintiffs executed another agreement and gave it to them and from the beginning the plaintiff was telling them that he had no funds with him. From the evidence of D.W.1 it is seen that the plaintiff had no sufficient funds to conclude the sale transaction. P.W.2s evidence shows that the partners of the plaintiff firm were capable of raising funds. That will not establish the means of the plaintiff for completing the sale transaction. On a perusal of the entire evidence and documents it is seen that after execution of the agreement of sale Ex.P-3, the plaintiff did not evince any interest in concluding the sale transaction and they were also not having sufficient funds to complete the execution and registration of the document and the defendants have committed breach of contract. 123. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He must have taken all steps for concluding the sale transaction including the arrangement of funds to pay for the sale consideration. 123. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He must have taken all steps for concluding the sale transaction including the arrangement of funds to pay for the sale consideration. A Division Bench of this Court has held in S.Sankaran and others v. N.G.Radhakrishnan S.Sankaran and others v. N.G.Radhakrishnan S.Sankaran and others v. N.G.Radhakrishnan (1994)2 L.W. 642 that, Sec.16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to allege his readiness and willingness from the date of agreement to the date of sale and he must also prove the same. The agreement for which readiness and willingness is pleaded must be the agreement that is sought to be implemented and in terms thereof. When the plaintiff wants an implementation of contract, not according to the terms contained therein, but with modification he deemed proper, and even in the plaint, willingness disclosed was not a willingness to deposit the full balance amount but such balance as remained after making such deductions, he cannot claim to have always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. After Ex.P-31 notice, the plaintiff did not take any steps for completing the sale transaction. The conduct of the plaintiff in not evincing any interest in concluding the sale transaction and making arrangements with third party to enter into agreement establishes that the plaintiff has abandoned his right and he came forward with the suit in the year 1981. A contract which has been abandoned has no legal existence for any purpose and it cannot be the foundation for any relief. The plaintiff has not established that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is settled law that granting specific performance of the contract to immovable property is not automatic and it is one of discretion to be exercised on sound principles. In Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2150, the Supreme Court has observed that when the court gets into equity jurisdiction, it would be guided by justice, equity, good conscience and fairness to both the parties. In Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2150, the Supreme Court has observed that when the court gets into equity jurisdiction, it would be guided by justice, equity, good conscience and fairness to both the parties. In the present case, a perusal of the documents goes to establish that the plaintiff was not at all ready and willing to conclude the sale transaction and there were laches on the part of the plaintiff in completing the sale transaction and so, the defendants were not in a position to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of the defendants waiting for a long time, the plaintiff did not take any steps to complete the sale transaction. So, the property was sold to the seventh defendant on 3. 1982 by defendants 2 to 4 by means of registered sale deed and the seventh defendant has become the owner of the property. The learned single Judge considered all these aspects and granted alternative prayer of money decree sought for by the plaintiff. 24. In Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2150, the Supreme Court has held that, in view of the fact that the respondent himself had claimed alternative relief for damages, we think that the courts would have been well justified in granting alternative decree for damages, instead of ordering specific performance which would be unrealistic and unfair…. and it was held that the decree for specific performance is inequitable and unjust to the appellant in that case. In the case on hand, defendants 2 to 4 have sold the property to the seventh defendant under a registered sale deed because of the laches on the part of the plaintiff and as the plaintiff has committed breach of contract, defendants 2 to 4 had to sell the property to the seventh defendant. 25. Counsel for the defendants also submitted that seventh defendant is willing to pay the amount decreed in that suit and the alternative decree granted in the present suit is well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that when alternative relief has been granted, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. 25. Counsel for the defendants also submitted that seventh defendant is willing to pay the amount decreed in that suit and the alternative decree granted in the present suit is well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that when alternative relief has been granted, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. He relies upon the decision in R.Sakku Bai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar alias R.B.Reddiar R.Sakku Bai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar alias R.B.Reddiar R.Sakku Bai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar alias R.B.Reddiar 90 L.W. 110, wherein it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that, Where in a suit for specific performance, or in the alternative for return of advance and for damages for breach of contract, the trial court gave a decree for the alternative relief of return of advance and damages, instead of the relief of specific performance, and the plaintiff sought to file this appeal against the decree contending that he would be entitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract as an aggrieved person against that decree and the appeal is not maintainable. The Apex Court has observed in the decision reported in Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2150, that in the event of working out equities, the courts would in an appropriate case, grant alternative relief, The courts will be well justified in granting the alternative money decree instead of granting the decree for specific performance which would be unrealistic and unfair. this Court has observed in the decision reported in Sakku Bai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar Sakku Bai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar Sakku Bai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar 90 L.W. 110, that alternative is an expression, which indicates a choice of the person and if that choice is exercised by him, then he cannot afterwards blow hot and cold and seek for reliefs as he desires by throwing overboard the benefits which he has secured on a full trial in the trial court. As the choice of the reliefs is always to the plaintiff who is the domius litus in a litigations; he could seek for more than one independent relief or ask for alternative reliefs. The plaintiff has been granted the alternative relief of money decree. 26. As the choice of the reliefs is always to the plaintiff who is the domius litus in a litigations; he could seek for more than one independent relief or ask for alternative reliefs. The plaintiff has been granted the alternative relief of money decree. 26. The learned single Judge after careful analysis of the entire evidence and documents passed the decree directing the defendants to pay the amount as sought for by the plaintiff. We are entirely in agreement with the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge. 27. In the result, the original side appeal is dismissed. No costs.