Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter ‘Plaintiff’) has filed the instant appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 15th December, 2006 by which the suit for specific performance instituted by the Plaintiff has been dismissed.

Brief background

2. The parties entered into an agreement to sell dated 8th November, 2004 in respect of property bearing Plot No.108 and 108-A, measuring 233 sq. yds. Out of Khasra No.36/22/1, situated in the area of Village Nangloi Jat, Abadi, known as Rajindra Park, Part-I, New Delhi. The total sale consideration of the said agreement was Rs.18,64,000/-. The agreement is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. Along with the said agreement, receipt for the sum of Rs.1 lakh paid on 8th November, 2004 and a further receipt for the sum of Rs.2.5 Lakhs dated 24th November, 2004 are exhibited as Ex.PW-1/B & C. The last date for execution of the sale deed as per the agreement to sell was 31st January, 2005. The parties entered into an extension agreement (Ex.PW-1/D) by which the period for conclusion of the transaction was extended by 3 months i.e. till 30th April, 2005.

Appellant/Plaintiff’s submissions

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff, as submitted by Mr. Anil Kher, Senior Advocate, that the Plaintiff, tried to repeatedly contact the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter ‘Defendants’) for execution of the sale deed within the time specified in the last week of April, 2005. When the Defendants were untraceable, a telegram was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants dated 29th April, 2005 (Ex.PW-1/E) but no response was received. On the same day i.e. 29th April, 2005 (Ex.PW-1/G), a notice was issued to the Defendants calling upon the Defendants to execute the sale deed. In order to keep the authorities notified, this notice Ex.PW-1/G 10, was also copied to the SHO P.S. Paschim Vihar. The Plaintiff further submitted that he visited the Sub-Registrar's Office on 2nd May, 2005 and the receipt of the said visit is also on record exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1.

4. In response dated 3rd May, 2005 Ex.PW-1/H1-4, the Defendants merely denied the allegations in the notice. The Defendants further stated in their reply that the Plaintiff failed to perform the obligations of contract. Mr. Kher submits that there was no response by the Defendants to the averments relating NOC to be obtained from Land Acquisition Collector as required under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. He, thus, submits that the Defendants, firstly having not been traceable and then having not replied to the telegram or to the legal notice within the date specified i.e. 30th April, 2005, have breached and failed to perform their obligations. In response to the reply given by the Defendants, the Plaintiff addressed another letter dated 7th May, 2005 (Ex.PW-1/I). This was responded to by the Defendants on 10th May, 2005 (Ex.PW-1/J1-6) wherein the Defendants again merely gave evasive denials to the just requisitions of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff filed the subject suit seeking the specific performance, possession and perpetual injunction. The reliefs prayed for in the suit are as under:

“(i) A decree of Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sale dated 08.11.2004, which was subsequently extended by mutual consent on 24.1.2005 upto 30.04.2005 by execution of the sale deed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Plot Nos.108-108A, areas measuring 233 sq. yds. (116.1/2 sq. yds. each), out of Kh. No.36/22/1, situated in the area of Village Nangloi Jat, Abaddi Known as Rajindra Park, Part-I, New Delhi, and for delivering the physical possession of the said plot to the plaintiff.

(ii) A Decree for Perpetual injunction thereby perpetually restraining the defendants, their agents, attorneys from alienating, by way of sale or in any other way or from creating any interest therein or any encumbrance thereon or parting with the possession thereof to anyone else in respect of plot Nos.108-108A, areas measuring 233 sq. yds. (116.1/2 sq