JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Tara Singh against the defendant Dani Bai w/o Mala Singh, whose legal representatives have since taken on record as the defendant Dani Bai expired during the pendency of this appeal being aggrieved of the dismissal of his suit filed for specific performance of the contract by the learned trial court of Addl. District Judge, No.l, Sriganganagar, namely; civil suit no. 182/82 on 29/8/1987. 2. The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement dated 28/12/1967 (Ex.2) followed by another agreement dated 13/1/1968 (Ex.3) under which the defendant Dani Bai agreed to sell her 12 bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 1130/- per bigha and under the said agreement received advance of Rs. 3000/- on 28/12/1967 and again received Rs. 3000/- on 23/1/1968, at the time of executing both these agreements. The plaintiff Tara Singh was also required to deposit the demand for giving `Sanad' in respect of Mala Singh, husband of Dani Bai, in whose favour the alleged allotment appears to have been made from the pool of land for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 3. Learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly while deciding issue no.7 inter alia on the ground that the said Mala Singh, in whose favour said allotment was made had seven sons and a wife , Smt. Dani Bai and, therefore, Dani Bai could not sell or agree to sell the said allotted land and consequently, since the regular `sanad' was not so far issued in her favour at the time of entering into the agreement in question, therefore, instead of granting specific performance for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the learned trial court directed refund of Rs. 6000/- received as an advance from the plaintiff. 4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29/8/1987 of the learned trial court, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Mr. 6000/- received as an advance from the plaintiff. 4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29/8/1987 of the learned trial court, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Mr. R.K. Singhal urged that notwithstanding defect in the title of the defendant Dani Bai, which could be cured upon `sanad' being given in her favour in term of Section 13(1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, where the concurrence of other persons is necessary for validating the title, and they are bound to concur at the request of the vendor or lessor and the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such concurrence and when a conveyance by other persons is necessary to validate the title and they are bound to convey at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such conveyance. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, therefore, submitted that defendant Dani Bai could pass on the imperfect or perfect title she had in the said agricultural land to the vendee-plaintiff, therefore, specific performance could not be denied on this ground. 7. On the other hand, Mr. R.D.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the grant of specific performance of such agreement is discretionary relief and in the circumstances narrated by the learned trial court while deciding issue no. 7 that not only the title of the defendant was not perfect as late Mala Singh, her husband, had seven sons, who along with one sister are now on record in place of Dani Bai and without concurrence of seven sons, no such agreement could be entered into by defendant Dani Bai. He, further submitted that in law said seven sons were not bound to give their concurrence at the request of defendant Dani Bai and, therefore, specific performance has rightly been denied by the learned trial court. He further submitted that as far as receipt of Rs. 6000/- is concerned, the present defendants-legal representatives are ready and willing to deposit the said amount. He further submitted that as far as receipt of Rs. 6000/- is concerned, the present defendants-legal representatives are ready and willing to deposit the said amount. He also fairly submitted that since under the agreement double of the said advance was required to be paid if specific performance was not allowed and conveyance deed was not executed in favour of the plaintiff, the present defendants, legal representatives of Dani Bai would pay double of the said amount i.e. Rs. 12,000/- to the plaintiff Tara Singh. To this, learned counsel Mr. R.K.Singhal added in rejoinder that liquidated damages may be paid to the plaintiff if specific performance is not to be allowed by this Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the record, impugned judgment and provisions of law, this Court is of the opinion that present appeal of the plaintiff deserves to be partly allowed with the modification in the impugned order dated 29/8/1987 to the extent that instead of specific performance of the agreement dated 28/12/1967 (Ex.2) and subsequent agreement dated 13/1/1968 (Ex.3) and instead of directing the defendants to execute the sale deed of the agricultural land in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants, who are now on record in place of deceased Dani Bai, should refund the sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the plaintiff within a period of three months from today and they shall further pay liquidated damages including interest to the tune of Rs. 38,000/- making the total of the two to Rs. 50,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the present defendants to the plaintiff within a period of three months from today. If the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not paid within a period of three months from today, the same shall bear simple interest @ 9% p.a. after expiry of three months period. 9. With this modification in the judgment and decree dated 29/8/1987, the present First Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******