1. The plaintiff seeks a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.01.1995 in respect of the entire second floor of the property bearing No. II/O-59, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’) alongwith proportionate share of the leasehold rights in the land beneath the building. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of possession in respect of the suit premises as well a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, selling, letting out or parting with possession of the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

2. It is alleged in the plaint that sometime in the month of January, negotiations, the said agreement dated 24.01.1995 (Exhibit PW-1/A) was executed. The sale consideration for the suit premises was fixed at Rs 25,00,000/- out of which the plaintiff made a part payment of Rs 5,00,000/- on 24.01.1995 itself. The said sum of Rs 5 lakhs comprised of Rs 3 lakhs in cash and a sum of Rs 2 lakhs by way of cheque bearing No.313815 dated 24.01.1995 drawn on Bank of America, Hansalaya Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It is further averred that the balance sale consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed. However, a further sum of Rs 5,00,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 07.03.1995. It is also alleged that the plaintiff spent Rs 87,651.72 on fittings and fixtures and that the defendants had agreed to adjust this amount towards the total sale consideration. It was stated in the plaint that the parties had agreed that possession of the premises would be handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff on or before 05.03.1995. However, on account of noncompletion of the construction, the same could not be handed over to the plaintiff. It is also alleged that though the timely delivery of the possession was one of the conditions of the agreement, owing to the delay in construction, the plaintiff agreed to grant further time of two months for completing the same. It is averred that the construction of the suit premises, the second floor of the said property, was completed

3. It is further alleged that on completion of construction, the plaintiff approached the defendants alongwith Mr Pradeep Sharma (PW-4), the property dealer for handing over the possession and the final documentation and payment of the balance amount as agreed. It is alleged that the defendants declined to hand over possession and started demanding a further sum of Rs 5 lakhs over and above the agreed sale consideration of Rs 25 lakhs. It is alleged that the defendants have declined to comply with the agreement and hand over possession of the suit premises unless and until a further payment of Rs 5 lakhs was made to them by the plaintiff, who, left with no other option, sent a legal notice on 10.07.1995 by registered post calling upon the defendants to perform their part of the agreement within three days failing which the plaintiff would have to seek legal remedies. The plaintiff did not receive any reply to the legal notice. It is also averred that the plaintiff has at all times been and is still willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration as soon as the sale deed is executed and registered in his favour. It is on the basis of these allegations and averments that the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.01.1995 has been filed.

4. In their written statement, the defendants have taken the plea that he has forfeited his right to specific performance and possession in terms of the agreement dated 24.01.1995. It was alleged that the plaintiff has committed breach of contract and has defaulted in making the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs 20,00,000/- and thus the plaintiff has forfeited his right to possession. It was stated on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs 5 lakhs as earne