On merits of appeal, learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is a case of great hardship to the defendants because suit land is the only property of the defendants inherited by them from Bawa Singh and, therefore, instead of specific performance of the agreement, alternative relief of recovery of double the earnest money with interest may be granted. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court i.e. Nirmala Anand versus Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Others. 2002(2) Apex Court Journal 0262 and Kashi Ram versus Om Parkash Jawal, 1996(2) PLR 337 . I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find myself completely unable to accept the same. The contention is completely beyond pleadings and is also not substantiated by any evidence on record and, therefore, the contention cannot be accepted. The contention has been raised just in the air without any foundation of pleadings or evidence. In fact, the contention has been raised by amending grounds of appeal and was not even raised in the original grounds of appeal. In the absence of any material on record, the contention has to be rejected. Insofar as judgments cited by the counsel for the appellants are concerned, in the case of Nirmala Anand (supra), specific performance of the agreement was decreed. In the case of Kashi Ram (supra) , earnest money of Rs.2500/- had been paid. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation i.e. 400 times the earnest money. Obviously appellants are not ready to pay
