ORDER : Heard. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-08-2009 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, FTC, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2009, by which, suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for specific performance of contract has been dismissed. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance on the pleadings inter alia that the defendants entered into the agreement to sell the property in dispute, being two storied house constructed over the land ad-measuring 1200 Square Feet in Khasra No.414, Ramsagarpara, Raipur in favour of the plaintiff Manoj Kumar Sahu for a consideration of Rs.55,21,000/- and advance of Rs.5,61,000/- was paid on behalf of the plaintiff by Sunil Sahu to the defendants. According to the plaintiff, balance amount of Rs.49,60,000/- was to be paid after execution of sale deed and receipt of vacant possession. Further case of the plaintiff was that later on, the parties agreed that the defendants would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff latest by July 2007. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had already paid Rs.5,61,000/- as advance and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, however, the defendants, despite repeated request, were avoiding to execute the sale deed and give vacant possession. The plaintiff gave notice Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4, but even thereafter, the defendants did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, hence, the suit was filed. 3. On the other hand, the defendants in their written statement, have stated that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants and in fact, it was Sunil Sahu, who entered into an agreement with the defendants, therefore, at the instance of plaintiff-Manoj Kumar Sahu, agreement was not enforceable. It was further case of the defendants that on 10-04-2007, the parties had agreed to amend the terms and conditions to the effect that the plaintiff would pay Rs.8 lakhs within two months. But, the plaintiff has failed to make further payment of Rs.8 Lakhs within two months, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree as he failed to perform his part of contract. 4. But, the plaintiff has failed to make further payment of Rs.8 Lakhs within two months, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree as he failed to perform his part of contract. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues:- ØŒ oknÁ'u fu"d"kZ 1-¼v½ D;k Áfroknhx.k us fnukad 20-10-2006 dks 55]21]000@& :i;s esa oknxzLr edku oknh ds i{k esa foØ; djus dk bdjkjukek fu"ikfnr fd;k Fkk\ ugha ¼c½ D;k Áfroknhx.k us mDr fnukad dks 5]61]000@& :i;s vfxze ÁkIr fd;k Fkk vkSj oknxzLr edku fjDr dj] iath;u foØ; i= fu"ikfnr djus dk bdjkj fd;k Fkk\ c;kuk jkf'k ds laca/k esa ldkjkRed 'ks"k dFku vÁekf.kr 2- D;k Áfroknhx.k }kjk oknxzLr edku fjDr ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k oknh us 8]00]000@& :i;s Áfroknhx.k dks Hkqxrku ugha fd;k\ ugha 3- D;k oknh iath;u foØ; i= fu"ikfnr djus gsrq rRij jgk gS\ vÁekf.kr 4- D;k oknh] Áfroknhx.k ls oknxzLr edku dk iath;u foØ; i= fu"ikfnr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ugha 5- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj nkok [kkfjt fd;k x;k 5. Learned trial Court held that the agreement was not enforceable because the agreement was not signed by Manoj Kumar Sahu, but it was signed by Sunil Sahu. In addition, it was held that the plaintiff having failed to perform his part of contract by not paying Rs.8 Lakh to the defendants, as agreed to between the parties by way of amended terms and conditions of agreement, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the agreement was enforceable and valid in law, because the plaintiff has come out with the pleading in his plaint that Sunil Sahu was the brother of plaintiff Manoj Kumar Sahu and the agreement itself was written in the name of Manoj Kumar Sahu by Sunil Sahu under implied agency of Manoj Kumar Sahu, which Manoj Kumar Sahu, PW-1 and Sunil Sahu, PW-2, both of them, have clearly stated in their evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, once the implied agency has been created, Manoj Kumar Sahu can always file a suit for seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendants through his agent Sunil Sahu. Therefore, once the implied agency has been created, Manoj Kumar Sahu can always file a suit for seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendants through his agent Sunil Sahu. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the agreement between the parties is required to be read as a whole and it was implicit in the terms of the contract that the amount of Rs.8 Lakh, which was agreed to be paid within two months under the modified terms and conditions of the agreement, was subject to defendant vacating the premises and arranging for his own rental accommodation. It is submitted that under the agreement, which was initially executed between the parties, the sale deed was required to be executed within a period of six months, i.e. on or before 20-04-2007. However, the defendant was not in a position to vacate the premises, therefore, on the request of the defendant, terms and conditions were modified and it was on his request that the time for execution of sale deed was extended up to July, 2007. In this context, it was agreed that further amount of Rs.8 Lakh will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, subject to defendant making alternative arrangement of his residence, which never happened. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant argued that even if it is found that the agreement was not enforceable under the law by a decree of specific performance, the amount, which has already been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, be refunded to him along with interest. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants supported the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the agreement, though was executed in the name of plaintiff-Manoj Kumar Sahu, it was not signed by Manoj Kumar Sahu, but by Sunil Sahu, his brother. There was no stipulation in the agreement that Sunil Sahu was authorized by his brother- Manoj Kumar Sahu to enter into the agreement. There was no stipulation in the agreement that Sunil Sahu was authorized by his brother- Manoj Kumar Sahu to enter into the agreement. The evidence of Manoj Kumar Sahu, PW-1 and Sunil Sahu, PW-2 raised a serious doubt with regard to genuinity of the document itself and both of them have claimed ignorance with regard to execution of the agreement as has been mentioned in the agreement itself and Manoj Kumar Sahu, PW-1 has even stated that he does not know, who purchased the stamp paper though stamp paper was purchased in his name. This shows that Manoj Kumar Sahu never intended to purchase the property. It is next submitted that the evidence that plaintiff-Manoj Kumar Sahu was obliged under the agreement to pay further amount of Rs.8 Lakh, subject to defendant vacating the disputed house and making alternative arrangement of rental accommodation, is contrary and inconsistent with the specific terms and conditions of the contract and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. It is lastly submitted that in the absence of specific relief claimed by the plaintiff under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for refund of the amount, which was paid earlier, no relief can be granted. 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the records. 9. Following issues arise for consideration in this appeal :- (A) Whether the agreement dated 20-10-2006 Ex.P-1 is legal, valid and enforceable at the instance of the plaintiff-Manoj Kumar Sahu? (B) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract or whether he failed to perform his part of contract as he was not paid further amount of Rs.8 Lakh within two months. (C) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance and if not, whether the defendant can be directed to refund the amount. 10. In so far as execution of agreement to sale between the parties is concerned, after going through the evidence of Manoj Kumar Sahu, PW-1 and Sunil Sahu, PW-2 as also Avtar Singh, DW-1, it is clear that there is no dispute in so far as execution of agreement Ex.P-1 is concerned. The parties have admitted that it was only due to typographical mistake, though agreement was executed on 20-10-2006, in place of 20-10-2006, another date i.e. 20-10-2007 was typed. The parties have admitted that it was only due to typographical mistake, though agreement was executed on 20-10-2006, in place of 20-10-2006, another date i.e. 20-10-2007 was typed. Even though, Subhash Jain, PW-3 and Rajesh Dhurve, DW-2 were witnesses to the execution of the agreement, both of them have stated in their evidence that the agreement was executed between the parties. 11. The question is whether the agreement of sale executed in the name of Manoj Kumar Sahu, signed by Sunil Sahu, his brother, is enforceable under the law, at the instance of Manoj Kumar Sahu-plaintiff herein. 12. In the pleading of the plaint, Manoj Kumar Sahu has come out with a specific plea that the agreement to sell was executed by Sunil Sahu, on his behalf. The agreement, Ex.D-1 records that the agreement was executed in the name of Manoj Kumar Sahu, though it has been signed by Sunil Sahu. In the oral testimony of Manoj Kumar Sahu, PW-1, it has clearly come in his evidence that Manoj Kumar Sahu authorized Sunil Sahu to enter into an agreement. Sunil Sahu, PW-2 has also not disputed this fact. It is not the case of the defendants that the defendants were not knowing that the agreement was being executed in the name of Manoj Kumar Sahu, though the agreement mentions the name of the plaintiff-Manoj Kumar Sahu. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are inclined to hold that Manoj Kumar Sahu had created an implied agency and Sunil Sahu acted as an agent to execute the agreement on behalf of Manoj Kumar Sahu. Therefore, the defendants, who have accepted Rs.5,61,000/- as an advance under an agreement to sell their property in favour of Manoj Kumar Sahu, cannot be heard by saying that the agreement was not enforceable in the Court of law at the instance of plaintiff-Manoj Kumar Sahu. However, even if, we were to accept the first submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement was enforceable in law, after going through the pleadings, terms and conditions of the agreement and the evidence adduced before the Court, we are convinced that the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of contract. For this purpose, we wish to refer the specific terms of the agreement, Ex.P-1, executed between the parties. For this purpose, we wish to refer the specific terms of the agreement, Ex.P-1, executed between the parties. The agreement would show that it was initially executed on 20-10-2006, where under the sale deed was to be executed within a period of six months on or before 20-04-2007 and thereafter, the parties have modified the terms and conditions under the agreement, as below:- ^^foØsrkx.k lkSnk'kqnk edku [kkyh djus ds fy, le; pkgrs gSA vr% vkilh lgefr esa jftLVªh tks fd vÁSy 2007 esa gksuk Fkk vc tqykbZ 2007 esa jftLVªh djkuk r; gqvk gS ,oa fnlEcj 2006 esa 8 yk[k dh jkf'k Øsrk }kjk foØsrk dks nsuk Fkk vc og jkf'k ebZ 2007 esa nsuk r; gqvk gSA^^ foØsrk vorkj flag xqjpj.k flag Øsrk lquhy lkgw 13. In view of the evidence led by both the parties, it is not disputed that later on, the aforesaid amendment in the terms and conditions of the agreement was carried out between the parties. Under the amended conditions, it was clearly stated that sale deed will be executed and registered in the month of July 2007 and amount of Rs.8 Lakh, which was agreed to be paid till December, 2006, will have to be paid by May, 2007. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the condition of payment of Rs.8 Lakh by the defendants was subject to defendants vacating the disputed house and making alternative arrangement of rental accommodation, cannot be accepted as it is nowhere written in the agreement. This condition is not even admitted to be implicit in the agreement between the parties and even read conjointly with the other terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. In fact, if the amended terms and conditions is read conjointly with the other terms and conditions of the agreement, it would be clear that though, under condition No.1, balance amount was required to be paid at the time of registration, new condition was incorporated, wherein further amount of Rs.8 Lakh was required to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants by May 2007. No other terms and conditions of the agreement further support the case of the plaintiff that the condition of payment of Rs.8 Lakh by May, 2007, was dependant upon the defendants vacating the house making alternative arrangement of rental accommodation. No other terms and conditions of the agreement further support the case of the plaintiff that the condition of payment of Rs.8 Lakh by May, 2007, was dependant upon the defendants vacating the house making alternative arrangement of rental accommodation. In fact, the plaintiff has set up a case of there being a implicit condition, which is contrary to the terms and conditions. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act reveals that when the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, except the document itself. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff was required to pay further amount of Rs.8 Lakh by May 2007, has to be accepted on the face of specific terms of contract and therefore, has to be held that the plaintiff was required to pay Rs.8 Lakh by May 2007. The plaintiff admittedly did not pay this amount of Rs.8 Lakh, as such, the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of contract at the second stage. Therefore, even though, initially advance of Rs.5,61,000/- was paid by the plaintiff, his failure to pay further amount of Rs.8 Lakh by May 2007, as agreed to between the parties on 10-04-2007, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of specific performance of contract, in view of the specific bar created under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. 14. It now brings us to the third point for consideration. In the entire plaint, there is no relief sought by the plaintiff that in case, the plaintiff is not granted decree of specific performance of contract, amount of advance paid by him, be refunded to him. Even if we were to accept the argument that in the modified terms and conditions, there was no agreement that in the event of failure to pay the balance amount, the balance amount will be forfeited, but our hands are tied in view of the statutory bar created under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which clearly reads thus:- 22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for— (a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or 1[made by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. (2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under section 21. 15. In the result, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Let appellate decree be drawn accordingly.