The main legal point established in the judgment is the breach of contract and the principles of specific performance, including the forfeiture of earnest money in case of breach.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The appellant J.K. Kashyap has preferred the aforesaid two Regular First Appeals to assail the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in C.S.(O.S.) No.2156/2007 – preferred by the appellant against the respondents, and C.S.(O.S.) No.277/2007 – preferred by the respondent against the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant, i.e. C.S.(O.S.) No. 2156/2007, while decreeing the suit of the respondents, i.e. C.S.(O.S.) No. 277/2007.

2. The appellant had preferred the aforesaid suit essentially to seek a decree of specific performance against the respondents herein in respect of the Memorandum to Sell dated 31.01.2005 entered into between the parties in relation to property bearing No.1/14 (Eastern side and adjacent to property No.1/13), Shanti Niketan, New Delhi, measuring 600 square yards along with building comprising of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Terrace (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) shown in Orange colour in the plan filed by the appellant with his plaint. The appellant also sought a direction against the respondents that they should receive the balance sale consideration and execute and register a deed of sale in his favour after completing all the required formalities and that they should handover the balance area in their possession in his favour, i.e. First Floor, Second Floor and Terrace to the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2, as well as against defendant No.3 in the suit, i.e. Mr. N.P. Gupta (who has not been impleaded as party respondent in the present appeals) to execute and register a formal deed of partition along with sanction plan showing separate allocation of buildable area on the suit property and site plan, in order to facilitate and enable registration of sale deed and conveyance of independent clear marketable title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

3. On the other hand, the respondents herein in their suit, i.e. C.S.(O.S.) No. 277/2007 sought a decree of possession against the appellant herein/defendant in respect of the Basement and Ground Floor of the suit property shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the plaint, apart from pendente lite damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per day. They also claimed travel expenses of Rs. 2 Lakhs incurred by them for travel from USA to India and back, to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the Memorandum to Sell dated 31.01.2005.

4. The undisputed facts taken note of by the learned Single Judge may now be noticed.

5. Mr. Chander Prakash Gupta was the original owner of the half portion of the property bearing No.1/14, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi – 110021, i.e. the suit property measuring 600 square yards. He died on 02.01.2000 leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 09.03.1995, bequeathing all his rights, title and interest in the suit property jointly in favour of his children - the respondents Mr. Rajiv Gupta and Mrs. Chitra Mehta. Thus, the respondents became co-owners of the suit property upon the demise of Mr. Chander Prakash Gupta. The other half portion of the aforesaid property belongs to Mr. N.P. Gupta – impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit filed by the appellant, i.e. C.S.(O.S.) No. 2156/2007, who is the uncle of defendants No.1 & 2.

6. There is no dispute between the parties that they did enter into the Memorandum to Sell dated 31.01.2005 (Exhibit P-1), where under the respondents agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant for a sale consideration of Rs.4.80 Crores. The appellant paid Rs.50 Lakhs to the respondents at the time of entering into the Memorandum to Sell (Exhibit P-1). The remaining sale consideration of Rs.4.30 Crores was to be paid at the time of completion of the sale.

7. On the Ground Floor and the Base