( 1 ) THROUGH this suit the plaintiff has sought a decree for specific performance for completing the sale transaction and executing necessary title deeds in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to their 1/4th undivided share measuring 18 bighas and 11 biswas in village Satbari, tehsil Mahrauli, New Delhi forming part of khasra Nos. 119/2 (0-01), 301/2 (2-00), 1072/2 (2-08, 1061/1 (0-04), 1073 (6-02), 1078/1 (1- 07), 1074 (4-01) and 890/2 (2-08) and to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff or in the alternative pay Rs. 6. 00 lacs towards the damages. Though on service of summons of the suit defendants 1 and 2 put in appearance and filed the written statement but thereafter they did not chose to participate in the proceedings and consequently they along with defendants No. 3 were proceeded ex parte.

( 2 ) FACTS lie in short compass.

( 3 ) THE defendants being the owners of the above referred suit property offered byway of communicating their intentions through broker in the area including one shri Mahender Singh. Since the plaintiff was desirous of purchasing some agricultural land, he approached Shri Mahender Singh who introduced him to the defendants. The defendants agreed to sell their undivided share in the land for a sale consideration of Rs. 6. 00 lacs and that sum of Rs. 2. 00 lacs was to be paid to each of the defendants towards the sale consideration of their 1/4th share each. After completion of the transaction two agreements of sale were executed. One pertains to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and another pertains to the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has paid Rs. 2. 00 lacs on signing of the documents and further paid a sum of 30,000. 00 to each of the defendants on or before 10th of February 1992. The aforesaid amount was paid by way of cheques as detailed in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The defendants also executed two receipts acknowledging the receipt of the aforesaid amount. The cheques were got encashed by the defendants. The balance of Rs. 4. 50 lacs were to be paid at the time of execution of the title deeds. Admittedly, the land in question was notified under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act along with other 12 villages in the neighbourhood. The acquisition proceedings pertaining to the 13 villages were challenged before this Court and these lands were denotified vide judgment of this Court dated 18. 11. 1988 in CW 1639/85, Balak Ram Gupta vs. Union of India.

( 4 ) THE defendants were requested by the husband of the plaintiff to take necessary steps and approach the Revenue Authorities for rectification of the records. The concerned patwari also demarcated the land in question in favour of the plaintiff. During these proceedings the husband of the plaintiff was also present.

( 5 ) IN terms of clause 3, the defendants were to obtain necessary permission and "no Objection Certificate" from the authorities to complete the transaction. The permission was to be obtained within six months. The same was to be communicated to the plaintiff in writing so that the plaintiff could get the transaction completed within one month thereafter. Since the defendants failed to take any action for completion of the transaction and take necessary permission the plaintiff approached the defendants on various occasions and requested them to obtain such permission so that the transaction could be completed but all in vain. Hence this suit.

( 6 ) IT is the apprehension of the plaintiff that the intention of the defendants had become dishonest after denotification of the land in question as its market value had risen exhorbitantly and thus they are now trying to wriggle out from the agreements entered into between them. Since the defendants are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreements for sale and are duty bound to complete the sale transaction and after execution of the title deeds they are also required to hand o