REKHA SHARMA, J.

1. The bone of contention between the parties to the appeal is a property at D-713, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. It all started in the year 1988 with respondent No.1 before me filing a suit for specific performance against the appellant and three others, initially in this Court which was later transferred to the Court of an Additional District Judge after the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court was enhanced. Basing her case on two agreements dated February 21, 1985 and September 07, 1987, respondent No.1 alleged that the appellant had agreed to sell the aforementioned property to her for a total consideration of ` 2,00,000/- and that even after having received the full sale consideration, she refused to execute the sale deed in her favour.

The learned Additional District Judge who heard the suit, vide judgment dated February 12, 1999 held in favour of respondent No.1 and consequently passed a decree against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement dated September 07, 1987 with a direction to the appellant to put respondent No.1 into possession of the property in dispute. The appellant was also directed to file applications/papers seeking necessary permission/No Objection from the concerned authorities within a month and after getting such permission/No Objection, was further directed to execute the sale deed of the property in question in favour of respondent No.1 within a month, failing which respondent No.1 was granted the liberty to get the sale deed executed through the machinery of the Court. As against the other three, the suit was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, appellant has preferred the present appeal, in which the three others who were co-defendants with her in the suit have been impleaded as defendants No.2, 3 & 4.

Before I come to the meat of the matter, it is necessary to refer, in some detail, the case of respondent No.1 as was set-out by her in the plaint and the response of the appellant to the same.

It transpires from the plaint that the appellant vide an agreement dated February 21, 1985 agreed to sell the aforementioned property to respondent No.1 for a total consideration of 2,00,000/-, out of which 40,000/- stood already paid as on the date of the agreement vide cheque No.182465 dated February 19, 1985 drawn on Syndicate Bank Branch, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. As per the terms of the agreement, respondent No.1 was to pay a further sum of ` 10,000/- by an account payee cheque on or before March 19, 1985, another ` 1,00,000/- at the time of handing over the possession and the balance ` 50,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed and other documents. It was also a term of the agreement that the appellant was to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the property to respondent No.1 within three years from the date of the execution of the Agreement to Sell? and in the event of her failing to hand over the possession, for any reason whatsoever, she was liable to pay ` 50,000/- to respondent No.1 along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till the amount was repaid.

It appears that the agreement between the parties ran into rough weather, for it was alleged in the plaint that even after respondent No.1 had paid to the appellant further sum of ` 10,000/- towards part-payment of the sale consideration and thereafter had written to the appellant that she was ready and willing to pay another sum of ` 1,00,000/-, the appellant rather than accepting the same and handing over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to respondent No.1 informed her that she had let out the property to respondent No.2 at a monthly rental of ` 650/-. It also came to light that the appellant had obtained loan of ` 35,687/- from the Union of India under the „Low Income Group Housing Scheme? for the purpose of constructing a house and by way of security had mortgaged the aforementioned property with the Union of In