V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the Trial court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as such. ( 2 ) THIS is the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-1998 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows. (I) On the basis of the application of the plaintiff, the defendant allotted industrial Plot No. 32 in Electronics City on 23-3-1982 and the plaintiff deposited Rs. 11,250/ -. But, the plaintiff was informed that the said site had been allotted to Indian Telephone Industries and that he would be allotted alternative site. Accordingly, vide letter dated 14-9-1982 plaintiff was informed about the allotment of Plot No. 26-B at Rs. 45,000/- per acre with certain terms and conditions. Upon fulfilling them, the defendant executed lease-cum-sale deed on 29-1-1983. However, possession of the plot was not delivered to the plaintiff despite several representations, demands etc. On account of the same, plaintiff was put to lot of inconvenience and hardship as he had to obtain revalidation and extension of various permissions, clearances and licenses. But, defendant purported to cancel the allotment by letter dated 18-12-1984. On account of the said arbitrary action of the defendant, plaintiff got issue Legal Notice dated 26-12-1984 calling upon the defendant to complete the allotment and deliver possession of the plot. The managing Director of the defendant assured to allot alternative site and the amount paid by the plaintiff would be adjusted towards the cost of the same. The plaintiff was asked to give his choice for allotment of plot. By letter dated 7-11-1987 the plaintiff indicated his choice to Plot No. 64. The defendant by its letter dated 23-11-1987 informed that plaintiff will be allotted 1/2 acre inthe said Plot at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, thereby the defendant tried to extract more money from the plaintiff resiling from the earlier contract. Although the plaintiff repeatedly called upon the defendant to fulfil the contractual obligations and deliver possession of the plot, the defendant failed to do so. On the other hand, the defendant by its letter dated 2-11-1988 threatened to cancel the allotment. Accordingly, by letter dated 18-2-1989 the defendant cancelled the allotment and thereby closed the case. Although the plaintiff repeatedly called upon the defendant to fulfil the contractual obligations and deliver possession of the plot, the defendant failed to do so. On the other hand, the defendant by its letter dated 2-11-1988 threatened to cancel the allotment. Accordingly, by letter dated 18-2-1989 the defendant cancelled the allotment and thereby closed the case. In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to complete the allotment formalities in respect of 1/4 th acre either in Plot No. 64 or anywhere in the Electronic City at Rs. 45,000/- per acre and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. (II) The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. Virtually, the defendant denied allotment of plot. It is pleaded that the allotment of Plot no. 26-B is only provisional. Though execution of lease-cum-sale agreement is admitted, the same was never registered and hence it has no validity. It is alleged that on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff possession of the plot was not handed-over. While defending the action taken, defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. (III) On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to allot Plot No. 64 measuring 11/4 acre in the Electronics City? 2. Whether the defendant proves that allotment was cancelled for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the terms of the agreement? 3. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the Court fee paid is not sufficient? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction? 7. To what decree or order?the plaintiff got himself examined as P. W. 1 and marked documents Exhibits p. 1 to P. 49. On behalf of the defendant one witness was examined as D. W. 1 and marked documents Exhibits D. 1 to D. 16. (IV) Upon consideration of the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed the judgment decreeing the suit directing the defendant to complete the formalities of allotment of 1)1/4 acre in Plot No. 64 or anywhere in Electronics city at the rate of Rs. (IV) Upon consideration of the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed the judgment decreeing the suit directing the defendant to complete the formalities of allotment of 1)1/4 acre in Plot No. 64 or anywhere in Electronics city at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre and to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff within two months. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal by the defendant. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the findings of the Trial Court on the issues framed are correct and whether the operative portion of the judgment and decree warrants modification? ( 5 ) AT the outset it is to be stated that Issue 1 was wrongly framed by the trial Court. The said issue casts burden on the plaintiff to prove there was agreement to allot Plot No. 64. In the written statement the defendant categorically denied the allotment of the said plot by stating "at no time Plot no. 64 was allotted". In view of this categorical denial of Plot No. 64, Issue 1 ought to have been framed throwing the burden on the plaintiff to prove allotment of the said plot. Question of agreement will arise only if there is allotment. Once allotment of the said plot is done, defendant is duty-bound to execute the agreement. Therefore, it has to be tested whether there was allotment of Plot No. 64 in favour of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) EX. P. 14 is the letter dated 14-9-1982 by which Plot No. 26-B was allotted to the plaintiff. The said document is also produced by the defendant as Ex. D. 3. In fact, originally Plot No. 32 was allotted but the same deleted under Ex. P. 17, dated 14-6-1982. In lieu of that, Plot No. 26-B was allotted. Ex. P. 22 is the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into in respect of Plot No. 26-B. The price of the plot is mentioned as Rs. 45,0007- per acre. Thereafter, the allotment of Plot No. 64 was made, which is evident from Ex. P. 41 (also marked as Ex. D. 13), the allotment letter dated 23-11-1987. Ex. P. 22 is the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into in respect of Plot No. 26-B. The price of the plot is mentioned as Rs. 45,0007- per acre. Thereafter, the allotment of Plot No. 64 was made, which is evident from Ex. P. 41 (also marked as Ex. D. 13), the allotment letter dated 23-11-1987. It also states that the amount paid by the plaintiff earlier towards Plot No. 26-B would be adjusted towards the cost of this plot. On the face of this document, the defendant ought not to have made categorical denial of allotment of Plot No. 64. Thus, the stand taken by the defendant is contrary to its own documents. ( 7 ) THE price for Plot No. 64 is mentioned as Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. In response to Ex. P. 41, Ex. P. 43 is the letter dated 27-11 -1987 of the plaintiff seeking,to allot the plot on the earlier terms and conditions. Thereafter, few correspondence exchanged between the parties and ultimately it resulted in the letter Ex. P. 46. dated 18-2-1989 declining to accept the request for allotment of plot at the old rate. Consequently, the offer of land was withdrawn. ( 8 ) FROM the events that took place, it is clear that even though the original allotment was in the year 1982 when Plot No. 32 was allotted followed by allotment of alternate Plot No. 26-B and subsequently Plot No. 64, the matter was unnecessarily dragged on. The correspondence indicates that defendant was responsible for this. In these circumstances, the allotment of plot cannot be denied by the defendant. Once such allotment is there, question of fulfilling other terms and conditions arises. But, the same did not happen as the defendant enhanced the price of the plot on each allotment. Hence, the question whether the defendant was justified in doing so, has to be looked into? The same will be dealt with after dealing with the findings of the Trial court on other issues. ( 9 ) ISSUE 2 pertains to cancellation of allotment on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the terms of the agreement. It is to be noted that Issue 1 pertains to execution of agreement. It casts burden on the plaintiff to prove the agreement. ( 9 ) ISSUE 2 pertains to cancellation of allotment on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the terms of the agreement. It is to be noted that Issue 1 pertains to execution of agreement. It casts burden on the plaintiff to prove the agreement. When, the existence of agreement itself is sought to be proved, question of complying with the terms of the agreement does not arise. In fact, Ex. P. 22 is the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 29-1-1983 in respect of Plot No. 26-B. For the reasons best known to the defendant, they have not acted upon the same. Instead, they offered Plot No. 64. Though defendant claimed cancellation of allotment on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff, in fact, it was the defendant who has gone on changing the plots each time and the fault cannot be attributed to the plaintiff. Taking into consideration all these factors, the Trial Court has rightly answered Issue 2 against the defendant. ( 10 ) ISSUE 3 pertains to plaintiffs ready and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The correspondence placed on record clearly shows that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. On the other hand, it was the defendant which has never inclined to perform its part of contract. Hence, the Trial Court rightly answered this issue in favour of the plaintiff. ( 11 ) ISSUES 4 and 5 pertains to limitation and Court fee. So far as limitation is concerned, Ex. P. 46 is the letter dated 18-2-1989 under which the allotment was withdrawn and closing the case. The suit was instituted on 15-2-1992, within three years. Hence, it is well in time and the Trial Court has accordingly answered Issue 4. So far as Issue 5 pertaining to Court fee is concerned, the Trial Court held that the suit was properly valued and the court fee paid was sufficient. I concur with the same. ( 12 ) HAVING answered the issues, I proceed to examine whether the enhancement of price of the plot by the defendant is justified. Plot No. 26-B was allotted in the year 1982 at Rs. 45,000/- per acre and even lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed. But, possession of the plot was not delivered to the plaintiff. ( 12 ) HAVING answered the issues, I proceed to examine whether the enhancement of price of the plot by the defendant is justified. Plot No. 26-B was allotted in the year 1982 at Rs. 45,000/- per acre and even lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed. But, possession of the plot was not delivered to the plaintiff. After a prolonged correspondence and hectic efforts of the plaintiff, half acre of land in Plot No. 64 was allotted at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre in the year 1987. It is true that there are lapses on the part of the defendant in not giving possession of the Plot No. 26-B. At the same time, the escalation in the cost of land cannot be ignored. The plaintiff, instead of fighting against the escalated price of the plot allotted, ought to have accepted and acted upon the same. On account of such unwanted ' protraction of the matter, even now he is not able to secure possession of the plot. Now, there is sky-rise price of lands and even after more than two decades the plaintiff cannot expect allotment of plot at the price that was offered in 1982. The plaintiff has to pay the prevailing market price of the plot that will be provided to it. To that extent, the judgment and decree of the Trial court has to be modified. ( 13 ) SINCE it is held that plaintiff has to pay the prevailing market value of the plot, ends of justice demand to observe that plaintiff could have claimed damages for the loss suffered by it on account of the conduct of the defendant in not handing-over possession of the plots allotted. But, no such damages are claimed. So, plaintiff must content with the relief granted by this Court. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Coun. insofar as directing the defendant to allot Plot No. 64 or any other plot in Electronics City and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff after completing all the formalities is confirmed. The possession of the plot shall be handed over within two months. So far as rate of the plot is concerned, the operative portion of the judgment and decree is modified directing the defendant to fix the present value according to its norms. The possession of the plot shall be handed over within two months. So far as rate of the plot is concerned, the operative portion of the judgment and decree is modified directing the defendant to fix the present value according to its norms. If the plaintiff pays the same, the plot shall be allotted within the stipulated time. --- *** --- .