The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, based on unrebutted evidence.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30th August, 2012 and permanent injunction against the defendant.

2. The summons in the suit was issued to the defendant on 29th April, 2013. Defendant entered appearance on 25th October, 2013, however, thereafter neither did the defendant appear in the matter nor did he file the written statement. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15th April, 2014 and the plaintiffs were directed to lead evidence by filing affidavits of all the witnesses.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant entered into an agreement to sell and purchase dated 30th August, 2012 in respect of property bearing No. C- 35, area measuring 73 sq. yds., with roof rights, out of Khasra No.47, situated at Gali No.2, Shashi Garden, Patpar Ganj, Delhi-110091 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) for a total sale consideration of `45 lacs out of which the plaintiffs paid `10 lacs in cash on the same day to the defendant as part payment. The balance amount of `35 lacs was agreed to be paid to the defendant on or before 2nd January, 2013 when the sale deed was to be executed and vacant possession of the suit property was to be transferred to the plaintiffs.

4. It is stated that on 2nd January, 2013, while the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the obligation, the defendant for his personal difficulties expressed his inability to execute the sale deed and handover the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was agreed in writing that the date of 2nd January, 2013 be extended to 6th February, 2013.

5. On 5th February, 2013, the plaintiffs informed the defendant that the plaintiffs were prepared to complete their obligation under the agreement and had got prepared two demand drafts bearing No.280452 and 280453 of `17,50,000/- each, both dated 5th February, 2013 from Bank of India, Mayur Vihar, Delhi in the name of the defendant for the payment of the balance amount for execution of the sale deed.

6. On 6th February, 2013, after due intimation to the defendant, the plaintiffs approached the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shastri Nagar, Delhi with the drafts of the balance amount, where their presence was recorded, however, the defendant did not turn up. After returning from the office of the Sub-Registrar, on talking to the defendant, the defendant promised to execute the sale deed on 14th March, 2013 and vacate and handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on 13th March, 2013.

7. It has been stated that in the first week of March, 2013, plaintiff No.1 came to know that the defendant was, in fact, trying to enter into further agreements with regard to the suit property. The plaintiff No.1 served the defendant with a legal notice dated 15th March, 2013 calling upon him to abide by the terms of the agreement dated 30th August, 2012 and intimate within seven days of receipt thereof, the place and date of execution of the sale deed for the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. The track record of the said notice sent through speed post revealed that the said notice was delivered at the address of the defendant on 19th March, 2013, however, the same was not replied to.

8. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant on 15th April, 2013. It is stated by the plaintiffs that they are ready and willing to purchase the suit property in terms of the agreement dated 30th August, 2012 and all the three plaintiffs together have sufficient funds available with them to perform their obligation thereunder, so the suit be decreed in their favour against the defendant in terms of the prayer in the suit.

9. The plaintiffs along with Mr.Gopi Chand Bansal and Mr.Dinesh Bansal were examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed vide order dated 7th May, 2014 an