Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 27.06.2008 in respect of property bearing No. D-104, Defence Colony, New Delhi, admeasuring 333 sq. yards.

2. The property was purchased by the Defendant by Sale Deed dated 18.02.1984, and was converted from lease-hold to free-hold vide Deed of Conveyance dated 02.12.2005.

3. As per the Plaintiffs during the months of May-June, 2008, the Plaintiffs were approached by one Mr. Virender Kumar Baweja – a property dealer, through whom the meetings were arranged with the Defendant and for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 crores 80 lacs, the Plaintiffs agreed to purchase and the Defendant agreed to sell the suit property, subject to certain terms and conditions.

4. The Plaintiffs claim to have paid to the Defendant earnest money in the sum of Rs. 1 lac in cash on 26.06.2008, and on 27.06.2008 an Agreement to Sell was executed and a further sum of Rs.1 crore was paid to the Defendant. It was agreed that the balance consideration would be paid to the Defendant within 100 days of the date of the execution of the agreement i.e. on or before 06.10.2008.

5. As per the Plaintiffs on 05.07.2008 a further sum of One crore was paid in cash to the Defendant towards part consideration of the sale transaction and in the receipt dated 05.07.2008 the karta of the Defendant assured the Plaintiffs that he would call all the members/coparceners of the HUF to personally sign and execute the sale deed/sale documents in favour of the purchasers.

6. As per the Plaintiffs, on 05.08.2008 a further payment of Rs.60 lacs was made to the Defendant towards part sale consideration.

7. Further, it is alleged that a payment of Rs.5 lacs was also made in cash to Mr. Sayad Saleem (alleged constituted attorney of the Defendant) on the directions of the karta of the Defendant HUF.

8. As per the Plaintiffs with a view to facilitate timely completion of the sale transaction on 26.10.2008, the Plaintiffs called upon the karta of the Defendant to execute the necessary documents including call the other members of the HUF.

9. As per the Plaintiffs, the karta of the Defendant HUF failed to ensure that all the members of the Defendant HUF were present at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It is alleged that the Plaintiffs was at all time ready and willing to perform the obligations under the agreement and to complete the sale transaction.

10. As per the Plaintiffs, the Defendant issued a letter dated 08.10.2008 claiming that the Plaintiffs had sought for extension of time to execute the sale deed and in response to the said alleged request, the Defendant granted a ‘One Time Extension’ to the Plaintiffs to complete the transaction upto 15.11.2008. As per the Plaintiffs, the Defendant defaulted in completing the transaction of sale. The Plaintiffs thus filed the present suit, claiming specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 27.06.2008.

11. The Defendant filed the written statement contending that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. For non-performance of a contract, where compensation of money is adequate relief, the same could not be specifically enforced.

12. The Defendant denied that the sum of Rs.1 lac was paid on 26.06.2008 or that any sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid to Mr. Sayad Saleem or that he was the constitution attorney of the Defendant for the purposes of accepting any money on behalf of the Defendant. Defendant has contended that Plaintiffs had no means to pay the balance sale consideration and they had themselves defaulted and as such, the Defendant had forfeited the earnest money paid by the Plaintiffs.

13. On 4.3.2011, the following issues were framed:-

(i) “Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) ? OPD

(ii) Whether the suit is barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, if so, to what effect? OPD

(iii) Whether the Plaintif