1. The original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this Appeal challenging the Judgment and decree for specific performance of contract in Special Civil Suit No. 595 of 1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in favour of the original plaintiff, who is respondent No.1 in the present Appeal.

2. To state in brief, the plaintiff is a Co-operative Housing Society and it filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants. The suit pertains to two properties shown as property “A” and property “B” in the plaint. Property “A” is 2 acres and 10 gunthas land from southern side out of Survey No.30/2 admeasuring 13 acres and 15 gunthas belonging to defendant no.3 – Arviind Shankar Potnis. Property “B” is 2 acres and 2 gunthas land from southern side of Survey No.29/2 admeasuring 1 Hectare and 91 Ares and it belongs to the defendant no.2 - Raghunath Shankarrao Potnis.

3. According to the plaintiff, it had purchased certain lands and constructed certain houses for its members. However, even after accommodating about 30 members, there were large number of persons, who were on waiting list, aspired to have their own houses in the Society. Therefore, the plaintiff-society was interested in purchase of some land, particularly adjoining or near its existing land. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had assumed the possession of the lands survey Nos. 29, 30 and 31 in the year 1970 from their tenants. While defendant nos. 1 to 4 were residing at Gwalior, defendant No.5 was managing their property and claimed to be their agent. He used to act as per the advice of one Vasant Karhalkar Advocate of Kopargaon, who is the maternal uncle of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The plaintiff approached defendant no.5 for purchase of the suit property and he assured to see that the suit property was sold by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to the plaintiff. In the year 1972, the plaintiff paid amount of Rs. 9,000/- to defendant No.5 for and on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant no.5 gave that amount to Vasant Karhalkar Advocate, towards part of consideration of the land. As per the oral agreement, the rate of the land would be Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and the actual price would be determined only after measurement of the land. It was also agreed that the suit land marked “A” would either be directly sold in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant no.5 would get the sale deed in his favour and then he would transfer the property to the plaintiff. Even though defendant no.5 assured all the co-operation, he was avoiding the measurement of the land by giving one or the other reason from time to time. In the year 1976, Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force and, therefore, the property could not be sold. The defendants refused to sell the suit property by giving one or the other reasons and finally, the defendants denied that there was any agreement for sale.

4. In view of these circumstances, in 1982, the plaintiff had to involve a third person, namely, Shrikant Murlidhar Chandratre to get this property from the defendants. As per the agreement between the plaintiff and said Shrikant Chandratre, said Shrikant Chandratre was to get an agreement for sale executed from the defendants. Accordingly, Shrikant entered into an agreement with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to purchase suit land marked “A” at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and defendant No.2 as power of attorney holder for defendant No.3 executed the agreement for sale on 7.11.1982. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to the defendants by a demand draft as earnest money and that money was paid by the plaintiff. The defendants were aware that Shrikant Chandratre was entering into contract with them for and on behalf of the plaintiff. Shikant Chandratre, in turn executed similar agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly, on 7.11.1982, defendant No.2 executed an agreement for sale of suit land marked “B” in favour of defendant No.5, who had in fact entered in the agre