1. Alternative reliefs:
The question of election between the two reliefs would have arisen only if the appellant could have shown that in respect of specific performance he had a cause of action.
The appellant has not made out a cause of action so far as the relief of specific performance is concerned and hence, the appellant is not entitled to be put to election with regard to the two alternative reliefs.
2. Claim for:
In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property alternative prayer for damages also sought. Mere this fact cannot disentitle plaintiff from claiming main relief of specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property.
3. Interference in revision:
It is manifest that in holding that the appellant was entitled in the alternative to ask for the relief of specific performance, the Trial Court had committed an error of law and so had acted with material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 115 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was therefore, competent to the High Court to interfere, in revision with the order of the Trial Court on this point.
To put it differently, the decision of the Trial Court on this question was not a decision on a mere question of law but it was a decision on a question of law upon which the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to grant the particular relief depended. The question was therefore, one which involved the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The Trial Court could not, by an erroneous finding upon that question, confer upon itself a jurisdiction which it did not possess and its order was therefore, liable to be set aside by the High Court in revision.