The main legal point established in the judgment is that the agreement to sell was specifically enforceable, and the respondent/defendant no.9 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior Agreement to Sell in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 9th February, 1990 of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi in Suit No.248/1989 filed by the appellant against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property and in the alternative for refund of advance paid with interest and compensation; by the impugned judgment, the appellant/plaintiff has been denied the relief of specific performance and has been granted a decree against the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 for recovery of Rs.10,000/-with future interest at 12% per annum and proportionate costs.

2. The appellant/plaintiff, on 23rd August, 1983, had instituted the suit from which this appeal arises pleading:-

(a). that the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 had vide Agreement dated 4th March, 1983 agreed to sell their property No.6777 situated inside Akata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi to the appellant/plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-out of which the appellant/plaintiff paid Rs.5,000/- at the time of Agreement to Sell;

(b). that the sale was agreed to be completed by executing the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff within one month of the Agreement to Sell i.e. by 3rd April, 1983;

(c). it was stated in the Agreement to Sell that possession of the property was with Ashraf Ali father of the appellant/plaintiff who was a tenant in the property at a rent of Rs.4/- per month since the year 1934;

(d). that the appellant/plaintiff as such since his birth has been residing in the property and had entered into the agreement to save his family from displacement therefrom at any time; (e). that though there was a provision in the Agreement to Sell that if the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 committed default in execution of the Sale Deed they shall be liable to refund the earnest money and pay liquidated sum of Rs.5,000/-as damages to the appellant/plaintiff but the said stipulation was made for the purpose of securing performance of the contract and not for giving the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 an option of paying the money in lieu of specific performance;

(f). that the appellant/plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had on 24th March, 1983 also purchased non-judicial stamp papers for execution of the Sale Deed and had got prepared a plan of the property for being registered along with the Sale Deed;

(g). that the appellant/plaintiff repeatedly requested the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 to execute the Sale Deed and receive the balance sale consideration but they continued putting off the appellant/plaintiff on one pretext or other;

(h). that ultimately the appellant/plaintiff got sent notice dated 30th March, 1983 to the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 expressing his willingness and calling upon them to execute the Sale Deed;

(i). that the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 vide reply dated 7th April, 1983 of their Advocate took a stand that the appellant/plaintiff had expressed his inability to purchase the property and therefore the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 had entered into an Agreement with another buyer and executed the Sale Deed in his favour and the appellant/plaintiff could have the remedy available to him to receive Rs.5,000/-;

(j). that the appellant/plaintiff had never expressed inability to purchase the property and the sale by the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 in favour of the respondent/defendant no.9 on 26th March, 1983 is deceitful, collusive and sham, being even before the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and also for the reason that while the sale in favour of the appellant/plaintiff was to be for Rs.16,000/-the sale effected in favour of the respondent/defendant no.9 was for Rs.9,500/- only; and,

(k). that the respondent/defendant no.9 had purchased the property with knowledge of the Agreement of Sale with th