S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks a decree against the defendant for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 7.6.1995 in respect of the second floor and terrace thereupon of the property being No. Y-39, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, (hereinafter called ?the suit property? and ?the plot?) measuring 200 sq.yds after obtaining Income Tax Clearance Certificate in Form 34-A from the appropriate authorities. Alternatively, in the event the Court finds that decree for specific performance cannot be granted, the plaintiff claims, as alternative relief, a decree for refund of Rs. 4 lakhs along with interest @ 24% per annum calculated with effect from the date of payment which amounts to Rs. 2,56,000/- as well as decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 22 lakhs along with interest, totaling Rs. 28,56,000/-.

2. The plaint averments are that one Shri Narender Nath Chadha had purchased the plot through a registered sale deed on 18.3.1959. He sold it to Smt. Ram Lubhai through a registered sale deed, dated 26.9.1961. Smt. Ram Lunbhai constructed a two and a half storied building on the plot with her funds. She executed a registered Will before her death. The Will was registered on 10.12.1987. In its terms, her son, Kundan Lal Behl got the entire ground floor; another son Prakash Chander Behl got the first floor and the defendant ? Murari Lal Behl got the entire second floor. The plaintiff also avers that mutation of the property was carried out in favor of three sons/heirs in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) on 9.6.1994.

3. It is averred that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a binding and concluded agreement on 7.6.1995 through which it was agreed that the former would purchase the second floor with terrace and structures on the terrace, as well as fittings and fixtures for a total sale consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs. This was on the understanding that the defendant was the exclusive and absolute owner of the second floor, i.e. suit property. The Agreement to Sell acknowledged the receipt of part payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the plaintiff on 1.6.1995. The Plaintiff also states that further payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made, under the said Agreement to Sell dated 7.6.1995. The balance sale consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, within ninety days of the Agreement, i.e. within ninety days of the execution of Agreement to Sell. It is also stated that this was subject to Clauses 5 and 6 of the said Agreement to Sell dated 7.6.1995, which obliged the defendant to apply for and obtain Income Tax Clearance Certificate in Form 34-A and also obtain a Probate Order from the competent Court, concerning the Will of Smt. Ram Lubhai as well as No Objection Affidavits of certain persons.

4. The plaintiff states though he was under no obligation to pay any further amount, yet at the defendant?s request, he did pay Rs. 1,25,000/- on 21.6.1995 which was duly received and acknowledged. The Plaintiff alleges that instead of complying with the terms of the Agreement to Sell, the defendant sent a notice on 11.9.1995 to execute the document and to make further payments to the plaintiff to pressurize him to pay more, knowing well that no such obligation existed till compliance of the terms of the said clauses of the Agreement to Sell by the defendant. The plaintiff refers to another notice dated 10.10.1995 which admitted the subsistence of the Agreement to Sell but stated that it could not be performed since one co-owner, i.e. Smt. Kamla Behl refused to furnish a No Objection Certificate and Affidavit. The defendant had also offered the refund of Rs. 4 lakhs paid by the plaintiff further to the Agreement to Sell. According to the plaintiff, the notices were afterthoughts and based on falsehood. Smt. Kamla Behl had already given her No Objection Certificate to the defendant; it is alleged that the latter took advantage of