VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This suit for specific performance is filed by the plaintiff/Company Shree Aadhiya Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff is the proposed purchaser under the Agreement to Sell dated 4.11.2006. Four defendants to the suit are the proposed sellers under the Agreement to Sell dated 4.11.2006 (defendant no.4 is the mother who had 50% share and who expired during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by defendant nos. 1 to 3 who are three sons). The land which is the subject matter of the Agreement to Sell dated 4.11.2006 comprises of 41 bighas and 16 biswas of land bearing Khasra no. 19//19 (6-16) (wrongly recorded as 0-16 in the agreement), 22 (4-16), 23 (6-16), 24(2-1), 21//11 (4-16), 19/3 (2-6), 20 (4-16), 21 (4-16) and 22 (4-13) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Baprola, New Delhi-110043.

2. The total sale consideration as per the agreement to sell was Rs.7 crores. A sum of Rs.72 lacs was paid in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 4.11.2006. Whereas defendant nos. 1 to 3 were paid a sum of Rs.12 lacs each, defendant no.4 was paid a sum of Rs. 36 lacs. These payments were made by means of cheques drawn on ABN Amro Bank and as stated in para 2 of the agreement to sell.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants became dishonest after entering into of the agreement to sell and they did not apply and take the necessary NOC under the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (in short the Act of 1972), and which was the duty of the respondents in terms of para 10 of the agreement to sell. Plaintiff has further pleaded that plaintiff regularly contacted the defendants, who either dilly-dallied or avoided to give details of applying of the NOC. Plaintiff further pleads in the plaint that suddenly the plaintiff received a legal notice from the defendants dated 6.2.2007 alleging that the last date of payment under the agreement to sell was 3.2.2007 and since the plaintiff did not make the payment of the balance amount by 3.2.2007, the amount of Rs. 72 lacs already paid by the petitioner stands forfeited by cancelling the agreement to sell. The legal notice dated 6.2.2007 also asserted that there was no final agreement to sell, inasmuch as, the name of the proposed buyer in the Agreement to Sell dated 4.11.2006 was left blank and thus the defendants did not know that as to in whose name the NOC was to be applied for. Plaintiff pleads that it is the defendants who are guilty of breach of contract as they want to back out of the agreement to sell. The subject suit for specific performance accordingly came to be filed on 17.2.2007.

4. The defendants in their joint written statement have essentially taken up three defences. First is that there is no final agreement to sell as the name of the proposed purchaser was never mentioned in the agreement to sell and which name was never informed to the defendants till 3.2.2007, and which was the last date for making payment under the agreement to sell. The second defence is that on account of the defendants not knowing the name of the proposed purchaser, and which was to be told to them by the property brokers who had brokered the transactions namely Sh. Kuldeep, Sh. Bharthu and Sh. Joginder Singh, NOC could not be applied for and obtained by the defendants. The defendants have also denied that the plaintiff has been and continues to be ready and willing to perform its part of the contract.

5. In the suit following issues were framed on 18.9.2007:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4th November, 2007 in respect of total land measuring 41 bighas 16 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Baprola, New Delhi, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed by the plaintiff? OPP

3. In case, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of specific performance, whether the plaintiff is entitled for r