1. This Suit is filed for specific performance and in the alternative for damages of Rs.1,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a thereon, as per the particulars of Exhibit-D to the plaint admittedly executed by and between the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 5 who are shown as owners of the suit property in the record of rights. Defendants 6 to 8 have been joined as party Defendants later, since they are the married sisters of Defendants 1 to 5, but who are not shown as owners in the record of rights. The execution of the agreement is admitted. The receipt of earnest amount of Rs.40000/- under the agreement is also admitted by Defendants 4 and 5 who have sought to defend the Suit.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 have expired. The Plaintiff contends that the other Defendants are their only heirs. The Defendants contend that they have left behind their own issues. No other heirs have been brought on record.

3. After the execution of the agreement on 19th November 1987 the Plaintiffs called upon the Defendants by the letter of Plaintiff No.1 addressed to the original Defendant No.2 to execute the conveyance at the date and place suitable to all of the Defendants. The original Defendant No.2 by his letter dated 12th January 1988 to the Plaintiff No.1 informed him that the Defendants do not wish to sell the property but would return the deposit amount as soon as possible. Upon such refusal the Plaintiff filed this Suit.

4. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 initially filed their written statement. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 have filed their written statement thereafter, but not contested the Suit.

5. The Defendants have challenged territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Defendants admit the receipt of the earnest amount of Rs.40,000/-and admit execution of the agreement for sale. They contend that the agreement was executed under undue influence and coercion. They have stated that the Defendants were in need of money for their dairy business which was running in loss. The Defendants took a loan on interest in the year 1982 and executed promissory notes. This was to be returned upon exorbitant interest of 18% to 20% p.a. They could not repay when demanded. They required further finance. The money lender, one Bachhubhai Bhansali introduced them to Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 gave them the requisite finance upon execution of the agreement as collateral security. The Defendants have admitted receipt of the amounts from Plaintiff No.1. The Defendants have also claimed that earlier loans were also taken for which promissory notes were executed. The Defendants have admittedly not repaid the loan amount with or without interest. The Defendant has not also not offered to repay any amount of the loan stated to have been taken by them in the evidence recorded in the Suit.

6. Based upon the pleadings between the parties Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari framed following issues on 21st March 2009 which are answered as follows:

ISSUES

1 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the above suit as the property is situated at Golwad, Taluka Dahanu, District: Thane. Yes

2 Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to specific performance of agreement dated 08/03/1987. Yes

3 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits from 01/01/1988 till possession. As per final order

4 In the alternative whether Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of their amount and damages in the sum of Rs.1,46,000/- with interest. As per final order

5 Whether the Defendants prove that the agreement dated 08/03/1987 was executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 5 only for the purposes of taking monies from the Plaintiffs for milk business and the agreement was collateral security. No

6 Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 08/03/1987 when the Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are not signatories to the said agreement. No

7 What order? As per final order

7. The Plaintiff No.2 has examined himself. Defendants 4 and 5 have been examine