( 1 ) BY the present judgment and order, I propose to dispose of the second appeal filed by the appellants arising out of the suit filed by the respondents seeking for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit being Suit No. 363/80 praying for decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21. 2. 60 in favour of Plaintiff No. I with costs on the ground that late Amin Chand, father of the defendants/ appellants sponsored a colony known as Ganga Ram Vatika. situated at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi of which he was the sole owner. It was alleged in the plaint that before the actual development of the colony such as laying of roads, installation of electric poles and water pipes etc. the predecessor in interest of the appellants agreed to sell a plot of land bearing No. 10, Jiwni Block in the said Ganga Ram Watika to the plaintiff No. 2 and that the said plot measured 330 sq. yards at the time of booking and measured 353. 1/3 at the time of payment of fourth and final instalment on 6. 2. 1966. It was stated that the terms and conditions of sale were defined in the agreement-cum- receipt dated 21. 12. 1960 which was issued by said late Amin Chand in favour of plaintiff No. 2 when the latter paid a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 to him as an advance in part payment of the price of the said plot @ Rs. 20. 00 per sq. yards and the total price to be paid to late Amin Chand was Rs. 6,660. 00 but was later on increased to Rs. 7,066. 67 on account of increase in the area of plot by the time of payment of fourth and final instalment of Rs. 7,066. 67. The plaintiff No. 1 became the nominee of plaintiff No. 2 for the aforesaid plot. It was stated that even after payment of the fourth and final instalment the aforesaid plot was not transferred in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 and that the plaintiff No. 1 visited the defendant on number of occasions and requested for transfer of the plot in the name of plaintiff No. 1 and that although the said defendant had been promising to do so but was avoiding the same on some pretext or the other for which the plaintiff No. 1 served a legal notice on 31. 5. 66 on the defendant. As no steps were taken to transfer the plot by the defendant, the present suit was instituted.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was stated in the said written statement that after the payment of the last instalment on 6. 2. 1966, the plaintiffs never paid an placed the cost for stamp duty and the registration fee of sale deed at the disposal of the defendant and thus did not comply with the terms and conditions in the agreement-cum-receipt. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was staled that time was the essence of the contract and that it was specifically agreed between the parties that in case of failure of the purchaser to pay any instalment within the stipulated time, he would cease to have any legal interest in the said plot and the owner would be entitled to forfeit all payments made by the purchaser before that date and would be at liberty to re-book and resell it to any other person.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed. The trial court after recording evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties decreed the suit with costs. The plaintiff was granted a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell and the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the said plot in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and also to get the registration done within two months from the date of payment of the charges for stamp duty and registration by the plaintiff No. 1.

( 5 ) THE defendant filed an appeal which was registered as RCR No. 107/1983. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, by his order dated 26. 10. 84. Being aggrieve by the said order the appellant filed the aforesaid appeal