Therefore, there was an obligation on the part of the defendant to demarcate the boundaries and separate it and the fencing or compound wall is to be done at the expense of the plaintiff under the supervision of the defendant. The obligation to pay second instalment of 10 lakhs before 30/4/2005 arises only when the boundaries of the property are fixed and demarcated. Apparently, the defendant did not measure the property nor did he demarcate the same before 30/4/2005. Therefore, he could not have insisted that the plaintiff has to pay 10 lakhs before 30/4/2005. Similarly, plaintiff proceeded on the basis that before 30/4/2005, property will be measured and a compound wall will be constructed by the defendant, of course, at the expense of plaintiff. There is no mention of construction of a compound wall in the agreement. Agreement only indicates actual measurement and demarcation of boundaries and at best, putting up of a fence. Therefore, this is an instance where both the parties have proceeded on a wrong basis. The plaintiff did not pay second instalment of `10 lakhs as even according to him, the defendant did not take steps to construct the boundary wall. As already stated, defendant proceeded on the basis that irrespective of the measurement or
