JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. - The unsuccessful defendant as appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar (as it was then) in O.S. No. 289 of 1981 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent as plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the Court below. It is pertinent to state at this juncture that the plaintiff having died during pendency of this appeal his legal representatives has been substituted and they are defending the sustainability of the judgment and decree of the suit in favour of their predecessor-in-interest. 3. Plaintiff's case is that he is the lessee in respect of the suit land, granted by the State Government in the Department of P and S for a period of 99 years and necessary deed to that effect has been executed and registered on 06.02.1970. As the lessee, the plaintiff was delivered with the possession of the said land and thereafter he made some construction over there including digging of a well. The plaintiff being in need of money, entered into an agreement with the defendant on 18.02.1977 for sell of the same together with the existing construction for consideration of Rs. 9,000/-. It is also the case of plaintiff that he received consideration of a sum of Rs. 8,500/- in total on different dates towards advance. Pursuant to the said agreement, the possession of the suit land was also delivered to the defendant. The suit land being a lease hold one, the plaintiff was required to obtain permission from the lessor-State for said sale being stipulated as a condition precedent in the deed of lease. So, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would apply to the lessor for the said permission and after the permission is accorded would execute and register the sale deed in the favour of the defendant on receipt of rest consideration. It is asserted that the plaintiff took required steps by making application before the lessee for according necessary permission to sell the suit land to the defendant. However vide letter dated 15.10.1979, the lessor refused to accord the permission as applied for. It is asserted that the plaintiff took required steps by making application before the lessee for according necessary permission to sell the suit land to the defendant. However vide letter dated 15.10.1979, the lessor refused to accord the permission as applied for. Therefore, the agreement remained unenforceable and the plaintiff remained in such a position that he could not complete his part of the contract being obstructed by the said refusal of permission by the lessor. It is further case of the plaintiff that in view of such refusal by the lessor, he had requested the defendant to take back the advance consideration paid by her and to vacate the possession of the suit land. However, the defendant did not pay any heed to it. So, the plaintiff served a notice through his advocate, while simultaneously publishing in the Oriya daily, the Samaj on 12.05.1981. The defendant having not responded to the same in any manner, the suit came to be filed mainly for the reliefs as under: "(a) decree for direction to the defendant to give up the possession of the suit land after receiving of Rs. 8,500/- for the plaintiff and on her failure to accord permission to deposit the said amount in the Court for recovery to the possession of the suit land through the Court. 4. The defendant filed the written statement and contested the suit. It is her case that after being delivered with the possession of the suit land together with the structure, she had further constructed a building up to roof level, admitting the fact that when up to the foundation level the plaintiff who had completed the work. On this head, she claims to have spent a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. It is her next pleadings that since the plaintiff did not take necessary steps as required, the permission was refused by the lessor. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff being an advocate's clerk had mischievously inserted said clause that in case of non-accordance of the permission by the lessor, the plaintiff would be under obligation to refund the amount without interest. It is also her case that by the time agreement was executed, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid and specifically on 14.7.1978 and 03.04.1979 a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 8,500/- respectively was received by the plaintiff, who had granted necessary receipts to that effect. It is also her case that by the time agreement was executed, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid and specifically on 14.7.1978 and 03.04.1979 a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 8,500/- respectively was received by the plaintiff, who had granted necessary receipts to that effect. So she pleads that the amount specifically paid by her has to carry interest in the event of refund. Her further case is that the plaintiff should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The plaintiff also raises the question of maintainability of the suit; lack of cause of action and the suit to have been barred by limitation. With the above counter pleadings, the defendant prays to non-suit the plaintiff, while alternatively praying for a direction to the plaintiff to receive the balance consideration amount and execute the sale deed in her favour and in case the agreement is found to be unenforceable, prayer is for a direction to the plaintiff to refund the advance money of Rs. 8,500/- with interest along with a sum of Rs. 11,500/-, which was spent for making further construction of the building over the suit land above the plinth level and also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards damage for the harassment caused. 5. Faced with such rival pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues which are the followings : (a) the maintainability of the suit; (b) existence of cause of action to bring the suit; (c) the right of the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the suit land on refund consideration Rs. 8,500/-. (d) the entitlement of the defendant to a decree for specific performance to contract against the plaintiff on payment of rest consideration; and (e) the entitlement of the defendant to recovery a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards cost of the construction made by her, interest over a sum on Rs. 8,500/- paid towards advance consideration as well as the interest of Rs. 8,000/- and the claim of damage of Rs. 10,000/-. During trial, plaintiff examined eight witnesses, when the defendant has examined three. The parties have proved a number of documents and those would be referred to in case necessity so arises in course of the discussion to follow. 6. The trial Court rightly as it appears has taken up the issues are pointed out above under (c), (d) and (e) together for decision. The parties have proved a number of documents and those would be referred to in case necessity so arises in course of the discussion to follow. 6. The trial Court rightly as it appears has taken up the issues are pointed out above under (c), (d) and (e) together for decision. The approach to be correct in view of the fact that all these issues are intertwined. Upon analysis of evidence in the touch-stone of the respective case set up by the parties in their pleadings and in the backdrop of settled possession of law the Court below has held the plaintiff liable to refund a sum of Rs. 8,500/- with interest @ of 10% per annum. Next the issues are regards to maintainability and cause of action have been answered in favour of the plaintiff and lastly consequent upon the finding of issue Nos. (c), (d) and (e), the trial Court has found the plaintiff to be entitled to recovery of the possession of the suit land from the defendant of course on payment of a sum of Rs. 8,500/-with interest @ of 10% per annum. Thus finally the suit having been decreed with the above reliefs; the defensibility of said decisions are now placed for consideration in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant (defendant) submits that said finding of the trial Court on issues Nos. (c), (d) and (e) is indefensible in the eye of law. According to him, the trial Court ought to have held that plaintiff for his own latches was refused with the permission and he being under legal obligation to execute the sale deed, has not so fulfilled. Thus having come with the suit for recovery of the possession of the suit land, he ought not to have been made entitled to said relief. It is his next contentions that the trial Court has erred in law by not awarding a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards cost for the construction of the building above the plinth level as incurred by the defendant together with interest and also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed towards damage. Therefore, he urges that the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court are required to be set at naught. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs) on the contrary supports the finding of the trial Court on Issue Nos. (c), (d) and (e). 10,000/- as claimed towards damage. Therefore, he urges that the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court are required to be set at naught. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs) on the contrary supports the finding of the trial Court on Issue Nos. (c), (d) and (e). According to him, the finding is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence on record and also the pleadings of the parties in the backdrop of the settled possession of law. However, in course of hearing, he practically conceded for modification of the decree to the extent of inclusion of Rs. 11,000/- as also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed on the head of construction and damage. 9. Faced with such rival contention the defensibility of the finding rendered by the trial Court mainly on issue Nos. (c), (d) and (e) is required to be examined and answered. Admittedly, the parties has entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land on 18.02.1977 for consideration of Rs. 9,000/-. It also stands admitted that the land being the lease hold land with paramount title resting with the lessor as required under the terms of the lease granted in favour of the plaintiff by the State to transfer the lease hold interest by the lessee to someone else is strictly required to be with the knowledge and permission being granted in that behalf by the lessor. The law is no more res integra that in such a case a lessee is not precluded from entering into an agreement for sale. But its ultimate fulfillment as agreed under the agreement is dependent upon the said factum of grant of permission. It is also not in dispute here that pursuant to the agreement the defendant being delivered with the possession of the suit land has remained with the possession. 10. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to have a look at the relevant clause of the agreement between the parties which runs as under : "P and S Bibhagaru Anumati Milile Ame Anati Bilambe Tumbha Namare Transfer Sesa Karidebu O Thumbhatharu Abasitha Tanka Bujhi Nebu. Anumati Milile Ambhe Tumbhachhada Anyakahaku Au Adhika Tanka Debaku Chanithile Madhya Karideiparibu Nahin. 10. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to have a look at the relevant clause of the agreement between the parties which runs as under : "P and S Bibhagaru Anumati Milile Ame Anati Bilambe Tumbha Namare Transfer Sesa Karidebu O Thumbhatharu Abasitha Tanka Bujhi Nebu. Anumati Milile Ambhe Tumbhachhada Anyakahaku Au Adhika Tanka Debaku Chanithile Madhya Karideiparibu Nahin. Anumati Milile Tumbhe Grahita Jadi Tala Tula Kari Kalakhepana Kari Hairana Harakata Karanti, Sata Dina Madhyare Dalil Karinebaku Sajaga Naruhanti Kimba Anumati Namile Tahele Ambhe Thumbe Grahitanku Agrima Neithiba Tini Hajara Tankaku Grahitaku Bina Sudhare Apasa Karidebu Jadi Apasa Nakaru O Anumati Milile Ambhe Data Tumbha Grahitanka Name Dalil Nakarideu Tahele Uchit Ainigata Bidhana Karinebe'. On a plain reading of the aforesaid clause, it appears that the parties had agreed on the follow up action in case of grant of permission and also in case of refusal. There appears absolutely no ambiguity in it so as to take any aid from other surrounding circumstances to cull out the intention of the parties. The parties agreed that in case of grant of permission on receipt of balance consideration plaintiff would execute the sale deed only to the defendant notwithstanding any higher/ better offer within seven days and in case of refusal of permission advance money would be refunded without interest. From above it appears that the parties have clearly agreed the consequences both in case of grant and refusal. Admittedly, in this case the permission was applied for by the plaintiff. But it has been refused on the ground of non-completion of the lock-in period of 10 years from the date of grant of lease as a condition precedent set out in the lease deed for entertainment of an application for permission and according of the permission. After the said refusal again the plaintiff made a representation to the lessor for according permission for transfer of the land to this defendant and that has gone without any consideration for all these period. So, the factual position is that after the first refusal, the plaintiff did not sit silent but again made an application which was gone without any consideration for such long period. Thus no fault can be found with him that it is he who intentionally created a situation for non-grant of permission which has not been shown by defendant by leading any sort of evidence in the suit. Thus no fault can be found with him that it is he who intentionally created a situation for non-grant of permission which has not been shown by defendant by leading any sort of evidence in the suit. So in such state of affair there cannot be waiting beyond a reasonable period, and that too unlimited. The defendant has also taken no step in the meanwhile by filing a suit for specific performance of contract and praying necessary relief therein of course subject to the decision of the lessor on the question of grant or refusal of permission. This suit for possession having been even filed in the year 1981, the defendant has maintained a sphinx like silence. It is the settled position of law that permission is not a precondition for grant of specific performance of sale of immovable property (Refer-Viswanath Sharma v. Shyama Sankar Goyal and another 2007 (10) SCC 595 ) and (Ajit Prasad Jain v. N.K. Widhani and others AIR 1990 Delhi 42). 11. The law has been well explained in "Miss Chandeen Widya Vati Madden v. Dr. C.L. Katial and others AIR 1964 Supreme Court 978. In the said case the contract was attacked as not enforceable being of a contingent nature and the contingency not having been fulfilled. The Apex Court repelled the said submission and held that the parties had agreed to bind themselves by the terms of the document executed between them and under that document it was for the defendant vendor to make necessary application for permission. She had made an application but for reasons of her own decided to withdraw the same. In the situation when the plaintiff were always found to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that it was the defendant who wilfully refused to perform her part of the contract, the time was not found to be the essence of the contract and, therefore, it has been held that the Court has got to enforce the terms of the contact and to enjoin upon the defendant to make necessary application before the authority, who is to decide whether to grant or not the necessary sanction. 12. 12. In view of the above here the only question arises as to whether in such eventuality the defendant will be getting the right to protect his possession of the land in question under Section 53(A) of the T.P. Act. The possession has no doubt flowed from the hands of the plaintiff to the defendant pursuant to the agreement Ext. 2. But the sale deed has not seen the light of the day in view of the refusal of lessor to accord permission to the plaintiff to sale his lease-hold right with respect to the suit land to the defendant. Even if it is said that it was because of the negligence of the plaintiff in not complying other requirements as are necessary to be produced before the lessor for the said purpose, it is seen that for all these long period no step has been taken by the defendant by approaching the appropriate Court of law having the jurisdiction with a prayer for specific enforcement of the contract for a direction for execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff in case of accordance of permission by lessor and directing the plaintiff to perform all such necessary act/acts as are required for entertainment and consideration of the application for permission to transfer the lease hold right, leaving it to the decision of the lessor which will have ultimate play in the matter culminating either in execution of the sale deed or otherwise. This, itself shows that the defendant practically sat over the matter although he continued to remain in possession with the permission of the lessee the proposed vendor. So here the defendant having not filed the suit for specific performance of contract for grant of a decree subject to the order of permission can be said to have not shown his readiness and willingness. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the defendant is not found to have been all along and till now ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, hence her possession cannot get the protection as provided under the provision of Section 53(A) of the T.P. Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the defendant is not found to have been all along and till now ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, hence her possession cannot get the protection as provided under the provision of Section 53(A) of the T.P. Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs being the substituted lessees are having the right to possess the land in suit and thus the entitlement to the said relief stands in the eye of law since the defendant's possession is purely permissive at the mercy and desire of the plaintiffs without any right to have it protected and thwart the move of plaintiffs to recover possession. In the aforesaid premises this Court although for different reasons and discussion, affirms the decision of the trial Court. 13. Now, coming to the question of grant of the refund of the paid up consideration with interest as well as a sum of Rs. 8,500/-, in view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents before this Court at the time of hearing and mentioned in the foregoing para and viewing the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels no necessity of taking up the exercise of examining the evidence in support of such claim of the defendant in judging the sustainability or otherwise of the trial Court's finding on that score. Accordingly, the defendant's entitlement is hereby found to the tune of Rs. 29,500/-with interest pendente lite and future @ 12% per annum. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, while affirming the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land, the finding with regard to the monetary claim of defendant is modified to the extent as stated above. 15. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part, in the circumstances without any cost. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and the defendant is directed to give up the possession of the suit land together with standing structure in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of two months hence after receiving a sum of Rs. 29,500/-with interest pendente lite and future @ 12% per annum failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to deposit the said amount in Court and recover the possession of the suit land by levying proceeding for execution in accordance with law. 29,500/-with interest pendente lite and future @ 12% per annum failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to deposit the said amount in Court and recover the possession of the suit land by levying proceeding for execution in accordance with law. Final Result : Partly Allowed