RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 30th April, 2011 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge (Central-07) Delhi in Suit No.383/2010/1980 filed by the four appellants against Shri Sat Narain Tulsian being the predecessor of the respondents no.1 to 6 in this appeal) of dismissal of the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property No.H-3/11, Model Town, Delhi constructed over land ad measuring 1250 sq. yds.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued and though the appeal was accompanied with an application for interim relief but the same was not pressed. The Trial Court record was requisitioned. The appellants/plaintiffs however within about ten days moved another application for interim relief to restrain the respondents/defendants from demolishing the subject property. The said application came up before this Court on 11th August, 2011, in order of which date it was observed that the senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs was heard at length on the application for interim relief on the date when notice of the appeal was issued but upon the Court being not inclined to grant any interim relief had not pressed the application. The second application for interim relief was thus held to be in abuse of the process of the Court. The application was thus dismissed. The respondents/defendants on that date also informed that the subject property had already been sold by them. The respondent/defendant no.1Shri Raj Kumar Tulsian died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 9th November, 2011. The appellants/plaintiffs also sought impleadment of Smt. Veena Gupta to whom the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 had sold the property and the said application was also allowed on 9th November, 2011 and the said Smt. Veena Gupta impleaded as a respondent to the appeal (respondent no.9 as per the amended memo of parties). On the same date i.e. 9th November, 2011 the appeal was also admitted for hearing. Hearing of the appeal was expedited as some of the parties thereto are senior citizens. The senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and the counsel for the respondent/defendant no.3 have been heard. The counsel for the subsequent purchaser Smt. Veena Gupta and the counsel for the respondent/defendant no.3 have also filed written submissions/propositions of law which have been perused. 3. The appellants/plaintiffs on 12th May, 1980 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:-

(a) that the defendant Shri Sat Naraian Tulsi was the owner of the property;

(b) that Shri Bhagat Ram, being father of the present appellants/plaintiffs and husband of the then plaintiff no.5 along with the appellant/plaintiff no.1 Shri Gulshan Kumar intended to purchase the said property and negotiations were going on which matured on 13th April, 1978 when the defendant agreed to make sale of the said property to the said Shri Bhagat Ram and appellant/plaintiff no.1 for total consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-;

(c) that the terms orally settled were that the defendant was to take necessary permission from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCR) and to obtain Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax Department and to otherwise remove impediments to make himself fit to execute the Sale Deed for the purpose of passing appropriate title to the purchasers and to execute deed and get the same registered within a period of six months computed from 13th April, 1978; it was assured that the property was free from all encumberances; that the appellants/plaintiffs were to meet the stamp registration charges; the actual and physical possession was to be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed; that if the defendant failed, neglected or refused to transfer the property with its clean title, the appellants/plaintiffs would be entitled to get the property transferred by an action of suit