PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) ON 10. 8. 2006 following issue was framed:-

"whether the suit is maintainable on account of the defence that the receipt-cum-undertaking dated 26. 12. 2005 is in the nature of an agreement to enter into an agreement to sell? Onus on parties. "

( 2 ) IA No. 5145/2006 is plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from selling or encumbering the suit land till disposal of the suit. IA No. 7050/2006 is defendants' application seeking recall of the ex-parte injunction granted on 5. 5. 2006.

( 3 ) SUIT seeks specific performance of an agreement dated 26. 12. 2005.

( 4 ) AS would be evident from the issue framed, question arises whether the document stated as an agreement to sell is an agreement to sell or is it in the nature of an agreement to enter into an agreement. To put it differently, did the parties conclude their bargain intending to enter into a legal relationship with each other when document dated 26. 12. 2005 was executed between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 who is the son of defendant no. 1 or whether parties contemplated that to bind them, a formal agreement to sell would be entered into.

( 5 ) THE document dated 26. 12. 2005 reads as under:-

Receipt-cum-Undertaking

? I, Mohit Bansal S/o Shri Late Sh. Suresh Bansal R/o H1/3 Modal Town

Part IIIrd. RECEIVED WITH THANKS SUM OF RS. 500000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) cash/by cheque No. ____on dt. ________, drawn on __________in advance on____________as a earnest money or part payment FROM Shri Randhir Singh Chondak S/o Shri Prahald Singh R/o 1/72 West Punjabi Bagh , new Delhi in respect of sale of a agricultural land, land area measuring________, out of Khasra @rate 72. 50 lakh per aqar , situated in the revenue estate of village Chhawla , New Delhi. The deal is settled for Rs. 3,26,25,000 /- (Rupees three crore twenty six lacs and twenty five thousand only), Balance is to be paid at the time of registration/sale deed at the convenience of the purchaser. I shall obtain NOCs and shall inform the purchaser within three month ( 31-3-06 ).

? I shall be responsible for any tax, dues, loan, tacavies , litigation till

the date of registration and thereafter these shall be paid by the

purchaser . I and my legal heirs have no right in the physical possession

now .

? The purchaser is fully entitled to get the sale deed registered in its

own name or in the name of its nominee/s. In case I fail to get the sale

deed registered, then I will be liable to return the double the advance

received by me within a week time and then the seller will be liable for

damages and interest @24% as well. The seller shall transfer the balance

land in the name of his wife or family member at his cost to facilitate

mutation .

? This receipt is executed, signed and delivered by the said executant

at Delhi on this 26. 12. 05 in the presence of the following witnesses:

D. O. Agreement - 5. 1. 06

WITNESSES.

1. Sd /- (illegible) 26. 12. 05 ??????????? EXECUTANT

2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Khzan Singh ????? Sd /-

V. P. Office-Chhala N. D. Sd /- ??????? ?? (Mohit Bansal )

( 6 ) PORTIONS of the document dated 26. 12. 2005 noted in italics are in handwriting. Rest is typed.

( 7 ) MR. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the defendants submitted and for which argument reliance was placed upon a decision 6f a learned Single Indge of this Court and a decision of another learned Single judge of the Madras High Court reported as 2003 (68) D. R. J. 70, Lalit kumar Sabharwal v. Ved Prakash Vijh and AIR 2001 Madras 447, pushpa Bai v. Dr. Williams and Ors. that the document in question does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and since an agreement to sell must have mutuality, the document cannot be classified as an agreement to sell between the parties.

( 8 ) IN my decision dated 21. 8. 2006 in CS (OS) No. 1415/2003, Sanjay puri v. Radhey Lal and Ors. , I had noted the decision in Lalit Kumar sabha