A conditional decree for specific performance can be granted to ensure enforcement of contractual obligations, and the injunction sought should be restricted to the specific property in question.

G.S. Patel, J.

1. The suit is listed for exparte decree. The defendants were served on 21st September 2011. No written statement has been filed. None appears for the defendants.

2. Heard Mr. Naushad Engineer, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs. Perused the plaint. The Plaintiffs have tendered an affidavit of documents and a compilation, as also an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of one Jayesh Gopaldas Sampat, the 1st plaintiff. Mr. Sampat is personally present in Court. He confirms the correctness of the statements made in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The documents produced by him along with his affidavit of documents, and attested to in his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief are taken on record and marked Exhibit “P1” collectively. Plaintiffs shall file a compilation of photocopies of these documents within one week from today. This compilation shall be verified by the office and the original documents shall then be returned to the advocate for the Plaintiffs.

3. This is a suit for specific performance. The 2nd plaintiff is the 1st plaintiff’s mother, and the 3rd plaintiff is his wife. The plaintiffs seek a specific performance of a flat purchase agreement dated 24th September 2006.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the owners of a immovable property at Borivali. There stood a building called Padmalaya of ground and three floors on this plot. The plaintiffs resided in flat No.4 on the ground floor of this building along with the 1st plaintiff’s brother, one Sameer Sampat (“Sameer”), and their family members. The 1st plaintiff’s father was the original tenant of that flat. He died intestate and was survived by the 1st plaintiff’s mother, Sameer, the 1st plaintiff (“Jayesh”) and their married sisters.

5. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, the original owners, entered into a development agreement with the 5th defendant, a firm of developers, of which defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the partners, for the demolition of “Padmalaya” and the construction of a new building in its stead. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, the landlords, approached Jayesh and Sameer and their family offered them permanent alternate accommodation in the new building. An initial round of negotiations failed. There followed certain eviction proceedings in the Small Causes Court, and a fresh round of negotiations. During these further negotiations, Jayesh, his mother and his married sister agreed that the tenancy could be transmitted to Sameer’s name. Declarations were executed to that effect.

6. Thereafter, an agreement dated 27th February 2005 was executed between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Sameer, under which Sameer was to get a flat of about 742 square feet on the second floor of the proposed building. The eviction proceedings were also compromised. It seems that two brothers desired that they live as neighbours in proximity to each other. Jayesh therefore decided to purchase a flat in the same building. Sameer entered into a supplementary agreement with the defendants, by which, instead of a flat on the second floor, he was now to be provided a flat on the fourth floor, viz., Flat No.402, in the same building along with an additional car parking space and additional carpet area. Jayesh, for his part, agreed to purchase a flat on the fifth floor, i.e., flat No.502, directly above the flat to be purchased by Sameer.

7. It was in these circumstances that an agreement for purchase of flat No.502 was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 on 24th September 2006. The agreement is registered. The flat purchase agreement requires the 5th defendant to sell to the plaintiffs flat No.502 with a carpet area of about 1160 square feet and car parking space No.11, for a total consideration of Rs.29,35,000/-. The consideration was payable in two installments. The first, Rs.13,35,500/- was to be paid on execution of the agreement. Its receipt is admitted in the agreement itself. The second instalment of Rs.15,99,500/- was to be paid by Jayesh against his