By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of two appeals arising out of a common judgment and order passed in EA Nos.110-111/1991 in Ex. No.164/1990 decided on 1st February, 2002. The Facts

2. Nand Lal was the perpetual lessee of the Land and Development Officer (L&DO) in property bearing No.9, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi (the suit property). When he passed away, he left behind as his heirs Banarsi Dass, Dhanpat Rai, Din Dayal and Gaindo Devi (widow of a pre-deceased son Paras Ram). Each had a 1/4th share in the suit property. Din Dayal passed away later leaving behind his widow Sushila Devi, son Mohinder Kumar Gupta, son Surinder Dayal, son Narinder dayal and daughter Vijay Lakshmi. The legal heirs of Din Dayal had 1/20th share each in the suit property.

3. The eight heirs of Nand Lal (compendiously called the Judgment Debtors) entered into an agreement to sell the suit property with Kuldeep Singh on 29/30th July, 1980. In terms of the agreement, Kuldeep Singh was to pay to the Judgment Debtors a total sum of Rs.14 lakhs as the sale consideration. He paid to them an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- against a receipt dated 30th July, 1980. Admittedly, possession of one garage in the suit property was handed over to Kuldeep Singh when the agreement to sell was executed. The balance amount of Rs.12,60,000/- was to be paid by Kuldeep Singh on the execution and registration of the sale deed and delivery of possession of the suit property. The agreement to sell was not signed by Rajinder Kumar the Appellant in EFA (OS) No.4/2002 and said to be the minor son of Din Dayal. There is no dispute about this fact, but it is disputed by Kuldeep Singh that Rajinder Kumar is the son of Din Dayal.

4. On their part the Judgment Debtors were obliged to make an application to the L&DO (principal lessor) seeking permission to sell the suit property to Kuldeep Singh. Such an application was made by them and the requisite permission was granted on 12th November, 1981 subject to the Judgment Debtors paying an unearned increase of Rs.7,17,330/- to the principal lessor besides some ground rent and interest thereon.

5. According to Kuldeep Singh, he offered to pay the unearned increase from the balance sale consideration but the Judgment Debtors did not respond to this offer. He also says that the Judgment Debtors did not deposit the unearned increase nor did they apply for obtaining clearance for sale of the suit property from the Income Tax authorities. According to Kuldeep Singh, he was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed and to abide by the terms of the agreement to sell but there was no positive response from the Judgment Debtors.

6. Faced with this situation, Kuldeep Singh alleged breach of contract and filed Suit No.280/1982 in which several prayers were made, more particularly for a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29/30th July, 1980 in respect of the entire suit property bearing No.9, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in favour of Kuldeep Singh and against the Judgment Debtors for the total agreed consideration of Rs.14 lakhs.

7. In the suit, Kuldeep Singh impleaded the Judgment Debtors as defendants. Rajinder Kumar, who claimed to be the minor son of Din Dayal when his father executed the agreement to sell, was impleaded as defendant No.9.

8. At this stage, it needs mention that Kuldeep Singh stated in paragraph 15 of the plaint that Rajinder Kumar had filed Suit No. 1428/1981 on the original side of this Court stating that he has succeeded to 1/24 share in the suit property on the death of his father Din Dayal and as such, he was not bound by the agreement to sell dated 29/30th July, 1980. It was also stated in paragraph 15 of the plaint that he (Kuldeep Singh) does not admit Rajinder Kumar to be a son of Din Dayal or a shareholder in the suit property but if it is so proved, then Kuldeep Singh would be entitled to enforce specific performance of the agreement to sell only in respect of 23