JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 07/08/2013 in Regular Civil Suit No.5732 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay decreed the suit for specific performance and directed the Appellants herein to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the Respondent herein within a period of two months.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide this Appeal are as under :-

The Respondents were the Plaintiffs and the Appellants are the legal representatives of the original Defendant Vilasben Vinodchandra Dhruva, and shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiffs’ and the Defendants, respectively. The Plaintiffs are the residents of the United States of America. They were interested in purchasing a flat in Mumbai, preferably in a building, Jamuna Mahal, Prabhat Colony, Santacruz, wherein Mukesh Shah, the brother of the Plaintiff No.1, was residing. Vilasben Vinodchandra Dhruva, the original Defendant, owned flat No.304 on 3rd floor of Jamuna Mahal, which shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit flat’. The original defendant expressed her desire to sell the suit flat. Accordingly, some time in February, 2005, during her visit to Mumbai, the Plaintiff No.1 visited the suit flat and pursuant to the negotiations, the Plaintiffs decided to purchase the suit flat for total sale consideration of Rs.41,75,000/-.

3. The Plaintiff No.1 had to leave for the United States, hence she requested her brother – Mukesh Shah to complete the remaining formalities. The Plaintiffs executed a power of attorney in favour of Mukesh Shah authorizing him to negotiate, execute documents and to perform all other acts and deeds necessary to complete the sale transaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs through their power of attorney and the original Defendant, entered into MoU dated 06/03/2005 for purchase of the suit flat for sale consideration of Rs.41,75,000/-. The Plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.2,51,000/- to the original Defendant as an earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid on or before 31/05/2005. The sale was to be completed on receipt of NOC and upon obtaining No Dues Certificate from the Housing Society, the Plaintiffs were required to pay the balance sale consideration and were to be put in possession of the suit flat.

4. The Plaintiffs claim that they had applied for housing loan from City Bank and were ready and willing to pay the balance amount and complete the sale on or before 31/05/2005. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was unable to obtain certificates from the Society and fulfill her obligation under the Agreement. Hence, by mutual consent, the date of execution of the sale deed was extended till 31/10/2005.

5. The Plaintiffs claim that they had forwarded copies of the documents to the advocate for the Defendant and repeatedly requested the Defendant to complete the sale. It is alleged that the Defendant avoided to complete t