Issue: Possession of the disputed land
Rule: The Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Application: The court held that the appellant was not entitled to specific performance of the contract for the sale of the disputed land, and that the respondent was entitled to possession of the land. The court further held that the appellant's failure to vacate the premises was a violation of the court's order and amounted to contempt of court.
Conclusion: The court's judgment is based on the application of the relevant laws and rules to the facts of the case. The judgment has a significant impact on the parties involved, as it determines the ownership of the disputed land and the appellant's right to possess the land. The judgment also has implications for future cases involving the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.