T. K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:--- The defendant who were unsuccessful before the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No. 1557 of 1971 are the appellants herein. Plaintiff-respondent also file cross-objections seeking certain modifications in the reliefs granted by the Court below. They challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on 6th July, 1992 whereby the Court has issued certain declaration against them.

2.This case had chequered history. It was originated by a suit filed by Shri Karsandas Mulji Kapadia and Bhogilal Manilal Amin both are residents at 95 "Parijat" Marine Drive, Bombay in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction on 14-10-1964 being Suit No. 495 of 1964. Subsequently, by order of the High Court dated 11-2-1971, the said suit was transferred and filed in City Civil Court and re-numbered as Suit No. 1557/71. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 2 expired and defendants 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) were impleaded as legal representatives. Though the plaintiff No. 2 expired, the suit abated against him as no legal representatives were brought on record. However, sole surviving heir of the plaintiff Karasandas Mulji Kapadia was allowed to be substituted by the present plaintiff viz., Parijat Flat Owners Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Body registered as Co-operative Housing Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960). According to the plaintiff, persons mentioned at Annexure 'A' to the plaint had purchased flats and garages on ownership basis in building 'Parijat' on Plot No. 95, Marine Drive, Bombay. An association was formed of 28 persons as shown at annexure 'B' to the plaint. The building was constructed by the 1st defendant and the flat were completed for occupation on 19th November, 1953. Before the said flats were constructed, the 1st defendant issued a circular Exh. A notifying that the flat are offered for sale and board was also exhibited on the building by the 1st defendant indicating flats are available in the said building on ownership basis. Defendants 2 (a), 2(b) and 2(c) are directors of the 1st defendant-company. It is the case of the plaintiff, that original plaintiff No. 1 had entered into an agreement of sale by a letter dated 15th September, 1952 with the defendant company in respect of flat No. 1 on sixth floor of building at price of Rs. 45,000/-. A formal agreement was executed thereafter on 15-11-1961. In the agreement original plaintiff No. 1 had also agreed to join Co-Operative Housing Society as a member to be formed on the said building. Similarly, original plaintiff No. 2 has taken Flat No. 30 on first floor for price of Rs. 40,000/- on 16-10-1954. It is the case of the plaintiff that all other remaining flat owners had purchased the flat on the basis of the identical agreement executed between them and the defendants on similar terms and conditions which contained in the agreement entered into between the original 1st plaintiff and defendant. It is further averred in the plaint that though the flats were purchased by them the agreement purporting to be lease was executed as certain disputes and differences arose between the flat owners and the defendant. This document was so executed on the clear understanding between the parties that what was transacted under the agreement was sale of flats. The plaintiff contend that under the relevant provision of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer), Act 1963, the 1st defendant being the promoter is under the statutory obligation to transfer their right, title and interest to the Co-operative Society of flat owners. Thus the Association formed by the flat takers by their letter 24-4-1964 was addressed to the 1st defendant, calling upon him to take necessary steps for formation of a Co-operative Housing Society consisting of the flat takers and transfer the flats in i