S.C. GUPTE, J.

1. The Plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit property, and pray for a decree of possession and mesne profits against the Defendants.

2. The facts of the Plaintiffs' case may be briefly set out as follows:-

(i) The suit property consists of a piece or parcel of land including houses and structures standing thereon. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit property, having purchased the same from the original owner, one Maurice Concessio (“Maurice”), under a conveyance dated 22 November 1997. It is the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendants are trespassers occupying a structure forming part of the suit property without any right, title or interest. The Plaintiffs, in short, pray for a decree of possession and mesne profits against the Defendants, based on their title.

(ii) As for the Defendants' occupation of the structure, the Plaintiffs' case is that their predecessor in title, Maurice, represented to them that by an unstamped and unregistered agreement dated 11 August 1979, Defendant No.1 had agreed to purchase the suit property from him for construction of a new building; that the said agreement inter-alia required Defendant No.1 to pay the balance consideration of Rs.40,000/- on completion of the building or within 12 months, whichever was later, and that until such payment, the purchaser (Defendant No.1) could not hand over possession of the new building to anybody; that despite passage of more than 2 years, the balance consideration was not paid by Defendant No.1, thus entitling Maurice to terminate the agreement for sale; that in response to a legal notice sent by Maurice calling for payment of the balance consideration and communicating his intent of terminating the agreement in default of such payment, Defendant No.1 claimed that the building not having been completed, the time for payment of the balance consideration had not arrived; that further correspondence ensued between the parties, but no payment was forthcoming from Defendant No.1; that in the meantime, Defendant No.1 put Defendant No.2 in possession of a part of the building constructed by the former, without payment of balance consideration and thus in breach of the agreement with Maurice; and that Defendant No.2 has since been wrongfully occupying the subject structure.

(iii) Based on these pleadings, it is averred by the Plaintiffs that in view of the breach by Defendant No.1, the agreement for sale between Maurice and Defendant No.1 had stood terminated and revoked; that the right to file any suit for specific performance of the agreement had become time barred; that Defendant No.1 merely had a licence to enter upon the suit property for construction of a building, whilst the possession remained with Maurice; that Defendant No.1 had no authority to create any right in any portion of the suit property in favour of any third party and that Defendant No.2, thus, has no title or authority to remain in occupation of any structure within the suit property.

3. The suit is not contested by Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has filed a written statement. Defendant No.2 pleads the bar of limitation. Defendant No.2 also claims ownership rights in respect of the premises occupied by it. It is the case of Defendant No.2 that during the subsistence of the agreement for sale between Maurice and Defendant No.1, one M/s Granulated Fertilizers and Feeds Pvt. Ltd agreed to purchase the suit premises from Defendant No.1 under agreements for sale dated 28 July 1980 and 29 July 1980; that M/s Granulated Fertilizers, in turn, by an agreement dated 13 April 1983, agreed to sell the premises to Defendant No.2; that both agreements, i.e. (i) agreements of 28 July 1980 and 29 July 1980, and (iii) agreement dated 13 April 1983, are valid and subsisting as of date and that Defendant No.2 is entitled to the suit premises under the agreements read with the various provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act ('MOFA') and defend its possession.

4. Based on these pl