( 1 ) IN the suit for specific performance of Agreements to Sell dated 12. 8. 1994 in respect of property No. E-261, Greater Kailash Part-11, New Delhi, alleging the execution of agreement to sell in favour of each of the plaintiffs by defendants 1-3 respectively who are alleged to have obtained the sale deed of the said property from defendant No. 4, who in turn allegedly obtained the General Power of Attorney from defendant No. 6, who is the original owner of the said immovable property, by this application, the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants from changing the identity of the suit property by demolishing the existing structure of boundary walls and one room or by raising any type of new construction thereon and from alienating, encumbering or disturbing the status of possession of defendants 1-3 at the spot in respect of the suit property, particularly, by defendant No. 6 or defendant No. 11; further seeking to restrain defendants 1-6 from executing any documents of transfer of ownership rights of the suit property in favour of any other defendant or in favour of any third party without the consent of the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs, shortly stated is that plaintiff No. 1 is a Private Limited Company; that plaintiff No. 2 is a Limited Company; that plaintiff No. 3 is the sole proprietory concern; that defendants 1 to 5 are related amongst each other that defen- dant No. 1 is the mother of defendant No. 5, grand mother of defendants 2 and 3 and mother-in-law of defendant No. 4; that defendant No. 6 is the person who was the original owner in respect of property No. E-261, Greater Kailash Part-11, New Delhi which he had purchased in terms of Sale Deed dated 3. 12. 1963; that defendant No. 6 had executed General Power of Attorney dated 3. 7. 1993 in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of the suit properly Which was duly registered with the Sub- Registrar, Nardol, District Rohtak (Haryana) whereby defendant No. 4 was duly authorised to sell, transfer and convey or otherwise to deal with the said property in any manner she liked; that it was also represented by defendant No. l-5 that an Agreement to Sell dated 3. 7. 1993 was also executed between defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 4 and that defendant No. 4 also reported to have paid a valuable consideration to defendant No. 6 in respect of the said property; that on the strength of the General Power of Attorney dated 3. 7. 1993 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 4, defendant No. 6 acting through and by the hands of defendant No. 4 executed and got registered three numbers of sale deeds dated 12. 7. 93 respectively in favour of defendants 1-3 whereby l/3rd undivided share in respect of the said property was sold, transfered and conveyed by defendant No. 6 through defendant No. 4 to defendants 1-3 respectively by means of separate sale deeds of the same date and duly registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sub-District III, New Delhi-8; that the plaintiffs thereafter entered into separate agreements to purchase all dated 12. 8. 1994; that the consideration in all the agreements for the sale of property was Rs. l7. 00 lakhs, earnest money paid Rs. 2. 00 lakhs; that in addition to the agreement to sell, defendant No. l had also executed an indemnity bond-cum-declaration dated 12/27. 8. 1994 in favour of plaintiff No. l, defendant No. 2 had executed similar Bond-cum- declaration dated 25/27. 8. 1994 in favour of plaintiff No. 2 whereas defendant No. 3 executed similar bond-cum- declaration dated 12/27. 8. 1994 in favour of plaintiff No. 3; that defendants 4 and 5 have witnessed these agreements to sell in favour of the plaintiffs; that in all consideration of Rs. 6. 00 lakhs was paid by the plaintiffs, i. e. Rs. 2. 00 lakhs each to each of defendants 1- 3; that the balance consideration under the respective agreement to sell was to be paid by the respective plaintiff to respective defendants 1-3 at the time of