VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008 passed in RCA No.84/2005 by the First Appellate Court, namely the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff has been allowed and the suit of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff seeking a decree of specific performance has been decreed. The respondent No.1/ plaintiff had filed the said first appeal to assail the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, namely the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.763/2002, whereby the said suit had been dismissed.

2. The respondent No.1/ plaintiff had filed the said suit for specific performance, impleading respondents No.2, 3 & 4 herein as the defendants in the suit, on the premise of an agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1/ Smt. Parmeshwari – the recorded Bhumidhar of 1/8th share of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 1018(1-00), 1072(1-00), 1073(1-00), 1079 (0-06), 1064 min (0-13), 1065 min (0- 13), 1155 min (0-6), 1161 min (0-10), 1163 (1-2), 1166 min (0-4), 23/15 min (2-08), 24/11 (5-14), 43/24 min (1-2), 25 min (4-18) in all measuring 20 bighas 16 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Kapashera, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

3. The plaintiff claimed that vide agreement to sell dated 16.12.1991, defendant No.1 had agreed to sell her share of the aforesaid land for a total consideration of Rs.1,43,541.66 and had received the entire sale consideration by cheque under acknowledgement. Defendant No.1 had also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a registered Will in respect of her share in the aforesaid land in favour of Smt. Anjali Sehgal. She had also sworn an affidavit acknowledging delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that in terms of the said agreement, defendant No.1 was obliged to obtain necessary permission under the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 and thereafter intimate the plaintiff for completion of the transaction with the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff claimed that on various occasions it inquired from defendant No.1 whether she had obtained the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and the defendant kept assuring that the permission was under process, and when the same is received, the plaintiff shall be informed. The plaintiff stated that it was always been ready & willing to help defendant No.1 to obtain the permission and perform its part of the contract. In the middle of April 1996, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and enquired about the aforesaid permission. However, defendant No.1 gave an evasive reply and, therefore, the plaintiff felt that she was trying to back out from the agreement. On 24.04.1996, a representative of the plaintiff again visited and enquired from the defendant with regard to the permission, and on this occasion, the defendant stated that she was not interested in transferring the land to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the said suit.

4. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement and revealed that during the pendency of the suit, she had transferred the suit property to defendants No.2 & 3. Consequently, they were impleaded as party defendants in the suit. In her written statement, defendant No.1 raised, inter alia, the objection that the suit was barred by time. She claimed that she was an illiterate person and her thumb impression was taken on the documents without disclosing the true nature of documents to her. She also claimed that the agreement in question was procured by Smt. Anjali Sehgal by using fraudulent means against the defendant. She denied that the amount of Rs.1,43,541.66 received by her through cheque was the full sale consideration. She submitted that Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. She further stated that Smt. Anjali Sehgal was holding the Power of Attorney, which enabled her to obtain the NOC and comp