JUDGMENT :

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

1. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 18/02/2014 whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai decreed the Civil Suit No. 8509 of 1994 filed by the Respondent No. 1 for Specific performance of Contract and other consequential reliefs.

2. The Respondent No. 1 was the Plaintiff whereas the Respondent No. 2 and Appellants were the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the Suit and shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff' and 'the Defendants' respectively. The subject matter of the suit for specific performance is the Shop No. 9 admeasuring 430 ft. situated at the ground floor of the building proposed to be constructed by the Defendant No. 1 at Sanduwadi, Chembur. The said shop shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit shop'.

3. The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that by an oral agreement entered in or about May, 1988, the Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit shop for a total consideration of Rs. 2,58,000/-. The Defendant No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, towards booking amount and assured to hand over possession of the suit shop within one year from the date of booking. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,48,000/- was to be paid at the time of handing over of the possession of the suit shop.

4. The Plaintiff claims that the construction of the suit shop was completed in the year 1990. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that despite repeated requests, the Defendant No. 1 refused to hand over possession of the suit shop. Hence, by legal notice dated 07/06/1993 and 07/07/1993 Plaintiff called upon the Defendant No. 1 to hand over possession of the suit shop. The Plaintiff claims that though she was ready and willing to pay the balance amount and perform her part of the contract, the Defendant No. 1 avoided and neglected to hand over possession of the suit shop. The Plaintiff therefore filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of the suit shop.

5. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the Notice of Motion, the Defendant No. 1 relied upon several letters to contend that despite several requests the Plaintiff neither signed the Agreement nor paid the installment. The Defendant No. 1 disclosed that the suit shop was sold to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 for sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- and that the Defendant No. 4 is in possession of the suit shop. The Plaintiff therefore amended the plaint and claimed that the Defendant No. 1 has fabricated the said letters to defeat her claim. She further claimed that the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have entered into an Agreement with full knowledge of the existence and subsistence of the Plaintiff's right and claim in respect of the suit shop. The Plaintiff averred that the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are not bonafide purchasers and that the Agreements are sham and fraudulent. Based on these pleadings, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the agreement for sale dated 21/07/1995 is sham, illegal and bogus.

6. The Defendant No. 1 filed their written statement inter alia claiming that the Plaintiff had approached them for purchase of the suit shop for total consideration of Rs. 3,51,000/-. The Plaintiff paid sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the booking amount. The Defendant No. 1 has alleged that there was no concluded contract and despite several letters, the Plaintiff did not pay the earnest money and sign the agreement. The Defendant No. 1 claimed that since the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to sign an agreement and pay the balance amount, they sold the suit shop to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Defendant No. 1 has stated that they have received full consideration and have put the Defendants in possession of the suit shop.

7. The Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have filed their written statement contending that they were not aware of any previous transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. These Defendants claim that they have purchased the suit shop for total sale