Sanjiv Khanna, J.

The plaintiff, Ms. Sneh Lata Gulliya, seeks specific performance of purported agreement to sell dated 26th January, 1996 marked a Exhibit PW1/1 in respect of flat No. 5-2, constructed on plot No. AC -8 (New No. R-8), Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property, for short). The defendants Mr. R.K. Gupta, Ms. Sunita Gupta and M/s. R.K. Gupta and Sons (HUF), dispute and deny the agreement to sell Exhibit PW1/1 and have stated that their signatures on the said agreement are forged and fabricated.

2. By order dated 7th December, 2000, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the agreement to sell dated 26.1.1996 is executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants and thereby agreed to sell the immovable property bearing No. 5-2, R-8, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi for the amount of Rs.22 lakh?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sell received Rs. 3 lakh by way of earnest money from the plaintiff and passed receipt dated 26.1.1996?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was and he is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement?

(4) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

(5) What orders and decree?

Issue Nos. 1 & 2

3. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are the core issues and being inter-connected, are being decided together.

4. The present case is of parties, who were once acquaintance if not friends but have now become foes. The plot in question on which the property exists, was purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 30th September, 1986.

Thereafter, she constructed nine flats on the property and sold the Same to seven different parties while retaining rights in respect of two flats. Sales were made by executing general power of attorney, agreement to sell, etc.

5. There is evidence that the parties were known to each other and were on visiting terms before the defendants purchased the property from the plaintiff. Both parties were non-residents. The defendants had visited and had stayed with the plaintiff, her husband and children in Texas, U.s.A. The defendants had made payments for purchase of the flat of Rs. 8,25,000/- by cheques during the period 1989-1991. The plaintiff has not disputed payment of sale consideration by cheques and the fact that documents like agreement to sell, affidavit, power of attorney were executed in September, 1991. These documents have been marked as Exhibits PW-1/X-1 to X-5 (see in this regard cross-examination of plaintiff, PW-1 on 6th April, 2004, 2nd September, 2004 and 4th September, 2004 and cross- examination of Ms. Sunita Gupta, DW - 2 on 13th November, 2007 by the Counsel for the plaintiff, wherein it is admitted that the defendants had stayed in the house of the plaintiff in U.S.A. in 1986).

6. It is also admitted case of the parties that the defendants were/ are in possession of the flat and had also resided in the said flat. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants vacated the flat and shifted out in end of December, 1996, while the case of the defendants is that they shifted out in middle of 1994.

7. The relationship between the parties turned sour and they became bitter foes, is established and evidenced by the following facts:

(i) There were series of police complaints inter se parties 1994 onwards. The factum of police complaints stands proved in the testimony of the plaintiff, PW -1. Complaints made by the plaintiff and her husband have been marked Exhibits P1/X7 to P1/ X14.

(ii) The plaintiff had cancelled and revoked power of attorney in favour of the defendants in respect of the flat by telegram dated 5th August, 1994 (see paragraph 6 of the plaint).

(iii) The plaintiff thereafter in August, 1994 had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before Civil Judge, Delhi, inter alia, stating that the defendants cannot sell. dispose of or part with the possession or deal with the flat. The suit was contested by the def