Mukta Gupta, J:

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit, inter-alia, seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20th May, 2006 and addendum dated 8th May, 2007, to deliver the possession of suit property and execute all deeds, necessary documents in order to carry out and execute sale deed in respect of property No.225, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi-49 along with car garage No.46 and Scooter garage 104 (in short the suit property) in favour of the plaintiff; permanent injunction restraining the defendants from parting possession or creating any third-party right in the suit property or in the alternative a decree of damages and compensation against the defendants.

2. As per the plaint the defendant No.1 and her two daughters i.e. defendant No. 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the suit property having inherited the same from late Dr. G.K.J. Malvankar. Defendant No.1 for the benefit of defendant No.2 and 3 intended to sell the suit property and thus defendant No.1 through defendant No.4 her lawful attorney and her brother-in-law entered into an agreement to sell dated 11th December, 2005 for the sale of the suit property with the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.68 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid vide cheques bearing No.718261 and 718262 dated 30th November, 2005 and 1st December, 2005 respectively. The husband of the plaintiff sold two properties at Jamuna Nagar and Gurgaon to arrange the necessary funds so that the sale documents could be executed in favour of the plaintiff by 30th April, 2006. At this stage defendant No.4 approached the plaintiff and told that besides defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 and 3 were also the co-owners of the suit property and the two daughters being minor, permission of the Court was necessary. Thus, a fresh agreement was executed between the parties by defendant No.1 to 3 through their attorney defendant No.4 on 20th May, 2006 for the sale of suit property for the same consideration i.e. Rs.68 lakhs out of which the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.4 lakhs thus totaling to Rs.6 lakhs. The balance sale consideration of Rs.62 lakhs was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed and handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. One of the terms of the agreement to sell was that the defendant No.1 would get the suit property converted into freehold from DDA before execution of the sale deed and since defendant No.2 and 3 were minor, defendant No.1 would also take necessary permission required to sell the property. The expenses were to be borne by defendant No.1. In this regard the plaintiff and her husband extended all the help and cooperation including getting a pay order of Rs.20,820/- prepared for payment towards part conversion to DDA which pay order was prepared by the plaintiff from her own bankers. The plaintiff’s husband deposited the application for freehold to DDA and made several visits. An application under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 for seeking permission to sell the suit property was also filed on 30th October, 2006 before the learned District Judge, Tis-Hazari by the defendant No.1 through her attorney defendant No.4 which was also done by the plaintiff’s husband. One of the requirements for permission for sale of immovable property in which minors had interest was to give a public notice in the newspaper which was also given by the plaintiff at the request of defendant No.4 with the assurance that the amount of Rs.10,000/- given to the counsel, would also be reimbursed. The said amount of Rs.10,000/- was later reimbursed by the defendant No.4 to the plaintiff vide the cheque No.809349. Since neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.4 were able to trace the original papers of the suit property as per the requirement, an advertisement was also issued in this regard in the national daily expense of which was also borne by the plaintiff. As the time for ef