The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of the agreement to sell dated 23.04.1981/05.05.1981, the rejection of the defendant's claims of the agreement being void, and the court's decision to grant specific performance of the agreement to sell.

1. This is a suit claiming a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.04.1981 / 05.05.1981 and for directing the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of plot No. 226, Block-A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said plot’) in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought a decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the super-structure standing on the said plot.

.2. The plaintiffs, who are brothers, have pleaded that the defendant

.lessor, The New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd being the lessee and the defendant No.1 being the sub-lessee. Clause II(5) of the said sub-lease required the sub-lessee (defendant No.1) to construct a residential building for private dwelling on the said plot within a period of two years. It is further pleaded that because the defendant No.1 was not possessed with sufficient funds and was unable to erect the building, the defendant No.1 entered into negotiations for the sale of the plot to the plaintiffs in consideration of payment of Rs 1,80,000/-. It is further pleaded that the agreement to sell dated 23.04.1981 / 05.05.1981 was executed between the parties, i.e., by defendant No.1 as owner / vendor and the plaintiffs as purchasers / vendees for the sale of the said plot measuring 481.5 sq. yds. It is stated that though the agreement was completed on 05.05.1981, the same was dated as of the date of original oral agreement, i.e., 23.04.1981.

.3. The plaintiffs further averred in the plaint that the total consideration of Rs 1,80,000/- was paid to the defendant No.1 through bank drafts, against receipts, as follows:-

.It is further stated that the said demand drafts were drawn on Mercantile Bank Ltd., Calcutta in favour of the defendant No.1 and were encashed by her.

.4. It is further averred in the plaint that as per the said agreement to sell, it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed and registered in favour of the plaintiffs in terms laid down by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) or the Government and at such time as was permissible by the DDA or any other authority, after construction of the building on the plot. The plaintiffs have stated that besides the said agreement to sell, the defendant No.1 also executed other documents which were generally in vogue at that point of time, such as, receipts, agreement of building construction dated 23.04.1981 authorising the plaintiffs to construct the building, three general powers of attorney in favour of Mr Riazuddin, father of the plaintiffs, two special powers of attorney, again in favour of Mr Riazuddin, four affidavits, one Indemnity Bond, a will dated 05.05.1981 and other documents. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs got the plans for the construction prepared and the same were signed by the defendant No.1 and were submitted for sanction. The construction of the building was raised by the plaintiffs entirely at their own costs and as per the sanctioned plans.

.the payment of cost of construction and stating that the plaintiffs should get the sale deed registered in their name. It is further averred that no date was specified in the said agreement to sell as to when the sale deed was to be executed and the defendant No.1 was under an obligation to execute the sale deed whenever required to do so by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the plaintiffs on various dates and lastly by letters dated 27.09.1991 and 23.11.1991 required the defendant No.1 to apply for and obtain the income tax clearance certificate and other necessary permissions from the competent authorities for execution of the sale deed in consideration of the amount already received by her. It is alleged that the defendant No.1, through her lawyer’s letter dated 04.12.1991, has taken an evasive attitude which may be construed as repudiation of the agreement to sell. Consequently, it is averred that the commencemen