11.To controvert the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/first defendant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has meticulously contended to the effect that the suit properties are the absolute properties of the first defendant. The first defendant has executed a General Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the second defendant on 30.03.2011 and on the basis of the same, the second defendant has executed a sale agreement on 05.09.2012 in favour of the plaintiff, wherein, the total sale consideration has been fixed at Rs.55 laskhs and on the date of its execution, the plaintiff has advanced a sum of Rs.45 lakhs; further it is recited in the sale agreement to the effect that the plaintiff should pay balance of sale consideration within a period of eleven months and the defendants should execute a registered sale deed in his favour and despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants have not come forward to execute a registered sale deed in his favour. Under the said circumstances, on 23.07.2013, a legal notice has been issued to the defendants and after receipt of the same, the first defendant has given a false reply notice and under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for getting relief of specific performance or alternatively to get a money decree to the tune of Rs.45 lakhs with subsequent interest and the trial Court, after considering the overall circumstances available on record, has rightly decreed the suit in respect of alternative relief sought therein and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not require any interference.
