Gita Mittal, J.

IA No. 9859/2006

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under the Provisions of Order 8 Rule 3 and 5 read with Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for passing of a decree in its favor on the admissions of the sole defendant.

2. Inasmuch as there is no dispute to the essential facts, the same are noticed hereafter.

3. On 14th November, 1979 Smt. Vijaya Myne, the sole defendant herein was granted perpetual leasehold right in the property measuring 325 sq. yards bearing No. C-2/270 Janak Puri Residential Scheme, New Delhi. There is no dispute that she continues to be the owner in occupation of this property and had built a double storey house thereon. Smt. Vijaya Myne entered into an agreement on 13th April, 2004 to sell this entire property to Shri Satya Bhushan Kaura, the plaintiff herein for a total consideration of Rs. 99 lakhs. This agreement has been duly exhibited on record as Exhibit P1. The defendant has received a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs as earnest money and Rs. 2 lakhs pursuant to this agreement on the same day and executed the receipt Exhibit P 2 in acknowledgment thereof. This agreement is duly witnessed by two persons including Shri Gagan Myne, the son of the defendant.

The parties to this agreement inter alias had covenanted thus:

If the intending buyer failed to arrange the balance payment within after freehold one month the earnest money will be forfeited but I will pay 2% (two per cent) brokerage to Raja Property Dealers, New Delhi.

4. It is noteworthy that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was to be utilised towards payment of dues of DESU, the house tax and for getting the property converted from leasehold to freehold. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant started ignoring the queries of the plaintiff with regard to the status of the conversion from leasehold to freehold of the property of the defendant. The plaintiff made inquires from even the property dealer who had been appointed by the defendant in this behalf. Finally, the plaintiff met the defendant with the property dealer sometime in December, 2004 and found that the defendant was prevaricating on account of the escalation of the prices and was desirous that the sale consideration be increased. Consequently, a revised agreement to sell and purchase dated 6th April, 2005 was entered into between the parties wherein he total sale consideration was enhanced to Rs. 1.27 crores on the defendants insistence. The parties thereupon executed and signed a fresh agreement dated 6th April, 2005 resulting in revocation of the prior agreement dated 13th April, 2004.

5. The agreement dated 6th April, 2005 has been admitted by the defendant and has been exhibited as Exhibit P4 on record. This agreement is witnessed by Mr. Gagan Myne, son of the defendant and Mr. Joginder Pal Singh and recorded thus:

And whereas the first party has further into this agreement with the second party and she has agreed to sell the said double storey built up property bearing No. C-2/270, measuring 325 sq. yds., situated at Janak Puri, New Delhi, with all rights and titles thereto, to the second party, and the second party had agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- (Rs. one crore Twenty Seven Lacs only), out of which the first party has received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs only) (Along with Rs. 8,00,000/- previous amount plus Rs. 7,00,000/- on sale proceeds and the receipt of which the first party hereby acknowledges.

That after conversion of the said property from lease hold into freehold in her name and after getting the conveyance deed of the said property duly registered with the office of sub-registrar, thereafter the second party will pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- (Rs. One crore Twelve Lacs only), within one month, and the first party shall execute the sale deed in respect of the said property in favor ;of the second party in his nominee, That the first prayer shall deliver the vacant physical possessi