G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of a Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 26.7.2000 (hereinafter referred to as Agreement). In the alternate, the plaintiff seeks recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.1.55 crores, the amount of sale consideration, which was fixed vide Agreement dated 26.7.2000. It may be noticed that prior to the filing of the suit, the seller, late Sh. K.C. Sehgal, died on 30.1.2002. Legal heirs of late Sh. K.C. Sehgal have been arrayed as defendants.

2. As per the plaint, the facts, which have led to the filing of the present suit, are that the defendants are the co-owners of the property bearing no.R-80, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, built on a plot of land measuring 310 sq. yards. At the relevant time, the property was owned by late Sh. K.C. Sehgal and upon his death the property devolved upon his legal heirs.

During his life time, on 26.7.2000 Sh. K.C. Sehgal entered into an Agreement with the plaintiff for sale of suit property, for which he received a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as part payment in the following manner:

(i) Rs.10,000/- by cash;

(ii) Rs.1.90 lakhs by means of a cheque bearing no.404261 dated 26.7.2000, drawn on Central Bank of India, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi.

3. The abovestated cheque was encashed by late Sh. K.C. Sehgal. In t he Agreement, it was represented that the property is free from all encumbrances, liens, charges, etc. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration would be paid by the plaintiff to late Sh. K.C. Sehgal at the time of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by late Sh. K.C. Sehgal before the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, Delhi, and at the time of handing over of actual, vacant peaceful and physical possession.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was agreed that Late Sh. K.C. Sehgal would obtain all the requisite permissions for sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and would inform the purchaser about the same. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Sh. K.C. Sehgal did not obtain the income tax clearance and also failed to inform the plaintiff the date for completing the deal despite repeated requests by the plaintiff from time to time. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to Late Sh. K.C. Sehgal on 3.11.2000 calling upon him to complete the entire deal and perform his part of the contract. A reply was received by the plaintiff on 21.11.2000 wherein late Sh. K.C. Sehgal informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff was to pay 25% of the total sale consideration and only thereafter Sh. K.C. Sehgal was to apply for income tax clearance. In the reply it was further stated that the Agreement was to be completed by 9.9.2000 and also the plaintiff should contact Sh. K.C. Sehgal and settle the disputes.

5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Sh. K.C. Sehgal, who died on 30.1.2002, his legal heirs (defendants herein) were contacted and called upon to complete the transaction but they kept on promising to complete the transaction shortly as per the wishes of their father, however, they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff issued another notice to the defendants on 11.11.2003 but since no response to the same was received, present suit has been filed.

6. The stand taken by the defendants in the written statement is that the present suit is blatantly barred by limitation as in response to the legal notice dated 3.11.2000 issued by the plaintiff, Late Sh. K.C. Sehgal had made it clear that the Agreement was to be completed by 9.9.2000 and further the plaintiff did not sign a proper agreement. As per the defendants, the period of limitation would commence from 3.11.2000 when reply to the legal notice was issued. Thus, the suit is hopelessly barred by time. It is also the case of the defendants that as per the own