JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Even after more than 19 years of death of learned counsel, who was appearing for the respondents, respondents have not engaged any counsel. 2. Heard Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants. 3. First Appeal No. 254 of 1989 is preferred against judgment and decree dated 20.3.1989 passed by 11th A.D.J., Meerut in O.S. No. 119 of 1984 which had been filed by the respondents against the appellants for a permanent prohibitory injunction and for recovery of Rs. 3000/-. 4. First Appeal No. 219 of 2008 is directed against judgment and decree dated 20.3.1989 passed by 11th A.D.J. in O.S. No. 168 of 1984, which had been instituted by the appellants for specific performance of an agreement for sale against the respondents. The suit was dismissed. 5. Both the suits related to the same property. 6. The case of the appellants was that respondents on 23.8.1983 had executed registered agreement for sale in favour of the appellants in respect of 4 bighas of agricultural land for Rs. 1,01,415.50 after receiving Rs. 50707/- as earnest money. The appellants further pleaded that possession of the land in dispute had been delivered to them through subsequent unregistered agreement of the same date. The respondents in their suit had claimed that appellants were unnecessarily trying to interfere in their possession and had cut away their potato crops worth Rs. 3000/-. As far as suit of the respondents is concerned, the Court below held that in view of the revenue records, the names of respondents were continuing. In the registered agreement for sale dated 23.8.1983, it was specifically mentioned that possession was not being delivered through said agreement. The witnesses of the respondents also proved possession of the respondents. The Court below further held that Paper No. 20-ka alleged to have been executed by the respondents on the same date on which registered agreement for sale was executed by them had not been proved. Paper No. 20-ka was not registered. The Court below held that no such document was executed. I fully agree with the findings which are based on correct appraisal of evidence. In any case when in the registered agreement for sale executed on the same date it had specifically been mentioned that possession was not being delivered hence it was impossible that on the same date an unregistered document would be executed delivering the possession. 7. I fully agree with the findings which are based on correct appraisal of evidence. In any case when in the registered agreement for sale executed on the same date it had specifically been mentioned that possession was not being delivered hence it was impossible that on the same date an unregistered document would be executed delivering the possession. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in First Appeal No. 254 of 1989. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that there is slightest possible error in the findings recorded by the Court below. The said appeal is therefore dismissed. 8. As far as First Appeal No. 219 of 2008 is concerned, it was also filed in the year 1989 but there was some delay. As delay was condoned in the year 2008 hence it bears number of 2008. As far as this appeal is concerned, the Court below held that under the registered agreement dated 23.8.1983 there was a condition under Clause-1 that out of balance sale consideration an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid by the appellants to the respondents by 4.9.1983 against receipt and balance sale consideration would be paid within four months. Under Clause-4 of the agreement it was provided that in case part payment is made earnest money would not be forfeited however in case of failure to make part payment earnest money would be forfeited and agreement would not be binding upon the respondents. The Court below held that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid within the time fixed under the agreement (in fact it was never paid), hence appellants were neither entitled to the specific performance of the agreement for sale nor for recovery of the earnest money. 9. The appellants had pleaded that they had offered to pay the amount but respondents did not accept the same. This version was rightly disbelieved by the Court below. In case respondents refused to accept the amount of Rs. 10,000/- offered within time fixed under the agreement the most natural thing to be done by the appellants was to send the said amount through money order. In any case the least which could be done was to give a notice immediately after refusal of the respondents to accept the offered amount. None of these things was done. 10,000/- offered within time fixed under the agreement the most natural thing to be done by the appellants was to send the said amount through money order. In any case the least which could be done was to give a notice immediately after refusal of the respondents to accept the offered amount. None of these things was done. PW-1, Haneef, appellant No. 2 stated that according to the agreement the appellants always remained ready to pay Rs. 10000/-, however none of the respondents came (to take the amount) hence money was not paid. Under the agreement the duty to pay the amount was of the appellants. They should have gone to the respondents and paid the money. It was nowhere mentioned in the agreement that for collecting the said amount respondents would approach the appellants. In view of this I do not find any error in the findings of the Court below that appellants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and they violated the essential condition of the agreement, hence they would not be entitled to specific performance of the agreement for sale. 10. However, I do not agree with the findings of the Court below that appellants were not entitled even to recovery of the earnest money of Rs. 50,707/- paid by them. The Court below held that as within one month Rs. 10,000/- part of balance sale consideration was not paid by the plaintiff to the defendant hence by virtue of Clause-4 of the agreement earnest money stood forfeited. 11. In between gross-negligence amounting to outright refusal to get the sale-deed executed and absence of readiness and willingness of the standard as required in suits for specific performance for agreement for sale (also mentioned under Section 16 of Specific Relief Act), there lies a large grey area. If a case falls within the said grey area then specific performance cannot be decreed but earnest money has to be directed to be refunded. In this regard reference may be made to Bahadur Beg v. Rahmat Khan, 1978 ALJ 733 and Ram Rati v. Fakira, AIR 1988 All 75 . In the latter authority it has been held that value of immovable property is increasing rapidly hence defendant will not suffer any loss if earnest money is directed to be returned therefore it would not be appropriate to forfeit the earnest money. In the latter authority it has been held that value of immovable property is increasing rapidly hence defendant will not suffer any loss if earnest money is directed to be returned therefore it would not be appropriate to forfeit the earnest money. In the said authority it had been held that plaintiff was not ready to pay the entire sale consideration to the defendant before the date fixed in the agreement for execution of the sale-deed hence plaintiff himself was defaulter and was not entitled to enforce the contract for sale. Supreme Court in Pramod Buildings and Developers (P) Ltd. v. Shanta Chopra, AIR 2011 SC 1424 , held that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, hence suit for specific performance was dismissed, however earnest money was directed to be returned. 12. In the instant case I do not find that plaintiff was utterly negligent (even though he was not ready and willing as required by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act). 13. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 219 of 2008 is allowed in part. Impugned decree dismissing the suit for specific performance as well as for return of earnest money is set aside in part and the suit is decreed only for return of earnest money with 12% per annum interest. ——————