ORDER :- Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi, owner of plot numbers 58, 59, 68A and 60B, measuring about 850 sq. yds. Forming part of khasra No. 2/19, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kakrola in the abadi known as Nidhi Vihar, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi entered into an agreement to sell dated 4th March, 2005 in favour of the plaintiff. In terms of the agreement a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was paid as earnest money (bayana) and the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to the seller on or before 25th June, 2005, upon execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in terms of the said agreement. According to the plaintiff, after execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff had approached Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi for taking actual measurement of the land as the some was postulated under the terms of the agreement. He required the said person to be present on site for such measurement. Unfortunately, Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi died on 9th April 2005, leaving behind his wife and children as his legal representatives, who have been impleaded in the present suit as defendants. After death of Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi on 9th April, 2005, the plaintiff approached the defendants for taking actual measurement of the land on the spot, but they avoided to do the same, which resulted in issuance of a legal notice by the plaintiff to the defendants on 26th April, 2005. This notice was replied to by the defendants vide their letter dated 4th May, 2005. In this reply a vague stand was taken by the defendant. It was stated that they were not having any knowledge about the transaction as that late Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi had never informed them of the said transaction. They asked for a copy of the documents. It was averred that the notice issued by the plaintiff was vague and uncertain but it was stated that the property, subject-matter of the sale deed, was subject to sale on 'as is where is' basis and the title documents showed the area to be 850 sq. yds. The plantiff and defendant No. 2 met on 19th May, 2005 for extension of time, for completion of the sale transaction. In that meeting, according to the plaintiff, the time for performance was extended up to 25th July, 2005 and it was also agreed by the defendant No. 2 that they would have the actual measurement of the land taken on spot before completion of the sale by the extended date and reduce the total cost of the land, if the area of the land was found to be less. After the meeting of 19th May, 2005, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 fixed the time on several occasions but the defendants did not turn up to measure the plot of the land. The plaintiff then in absence of the defendants took the measurement of the land and found the area to be 700 sq. yds. And thereafter he sent another legal notice dated 18th July, 2005 to the defendants requiring them to complete the work of actual measurement of land by 21st July, 2005 and accept the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed positively by 25th July, 2005. It is further averred in the plaint by the plaintiff that instead of completing the contractual obligations, the defendants sent a reply to the notice on 20th July, 2005 alleging that as the cost of the land was agreed to be reduced by Rs. 1 lakh in all, in the meeting dated 19th May, 2005, no actual measurement was required to be taken and if the balance amount of consideration was not paid by the extended date, the earnest money paid would stand forfeited. The plaintiff was also informed by the defendants that if the transaction is not completed by 25th July, 2005, the plaintiff would have no right or interest in the said property.

2. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that it was never agreed by him that the property can be sold to the plaintiff by reducing the sale consideration by Rs. 1 lakh. He stated that the defendants were trying to sell the property to third parties and were finding an excuse to wriggle out