1. The Plaintiff has sued for a declaration that the agreement dated 10th April, 1981 is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants and that the conveyance Exh. H to the Plaint is subject to the Plaintiff's right and for specific performance of the agreement dated 10th April, 1981 as also for recovery of Rs.21,42,827/-and declaration of the statutory charge for repayment of that amount.

2. The Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 agreed to purchase the suit property which is an open plot of land called Irani property at village Nagargaon, Lonavla from the owners, the predecessor-in-title of defendant Nos.31,32 & 33 on 10th April, 1981. Though the agreement is not produced by any party, its execution is not denied. The Plaintiff claims a 15% share in the suit property which is also not denied. The Plaintiff claims to have contributed Rs.34006.64 towards purchase price being 15% of the total consideration which is stated to have been paid by the Plaintiff after the agreement was executed, the total purchase price having been paid by M/s. Eastley Lam & Co., the firm in which the Plaintiff was then a partner. The possession of the suit property was handed over to the purchasers as mentioned in the Power of Attorney which is an admitted fact. The Plaintiff claims to have shown his share and interest in his income tax and wealth tax returns which fact is not proved. The partners were to undertake a joint venture for development of the property purchased and sale thereof. The execution of Joint Ventrue agreement is admitted, but it is contended that it had become infructious as none acted upon it.

3. The vendor executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and the original defendant No.2 since deceased, on 8th June, 1981 to carry out the terms under the agreement dated 10th April,1981, a fact which is admitted by all the parties and specifically relied upon by the defendant No.1, the real contesting defendant. The said Power of Attorney is stated to have been executed upon consent of all the purchasers including the Plaintiff for carrying out the execution of the agreement. The Power of Attorney is stated to have been acted upon.

4. At the time of the execution of the agreement the Plaintiff was a partner in the firm. He had since retired therefrom. After his retirement from the firm the Plaintiff did not know how defendant No.1 acted on behalf of the purchasers for the development of the suit property under the Power of Attorney. There has been certain correspondence between the parties. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he addressed letters dated 4th June, 1991,8th July, 1991 and 19th July,1991 which were not replied. The receipt of the letters dated 14th June, 1981 and 8th July, 1991 are denied. The receipt of the letter dated 19th July, 1991 is admitted but is not replied. The later letter of the Plaintiff dated 23rd October, 1991 is replied on 31st October, 1991 denying the Plaintiff's claim for the first time. It is upon the denial that the Plaintiff has sued. The Plaintiff searched the records of the office of the sub registrar and obtained search report on 24th October, 1991. The Plaintiff learnt about various conveyances executed by defendant No.1 as the constituted attorney of the vendor in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 30. The execution of the conveyances is not only admitted, but is relied upon by defendant No.1. The conveyances have been registered. In some of the conveyances the consideration shown therein was rejected by the registrar of sub assurances and it was directed to be revalued for the purpose of stamping which was done and which would reflect the market rate prevalent then. The consideration shown in some of the conveyances has been accepted by the Registrar. The acceptance and rejection of the consideration under deed of conveyances has been on different dates. The conveyances have been executed between January and October, 1989. The Plaintiff has shown the entries