Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. An agreement to sell was entered into on 12th May, 1983 for the sale of property bearing No.C-14A and C-15, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. As per the agreement, Sh. Dulal Chand Nandi-Defendant No.1, the owner had agreed to sell the property admeasuring 696.96 sq yards for a consideration of Rs.16 lakhs to Smt. Savitri Jain-Defendant No.2 and Mrs. Kiran Bala Mehru-Plaintiff. A sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid towards part payment of the total sale consideration. The contents of the agreement are not in dispute between the parties. The agreement is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4, though there are two versions of the agreement, which are in original on record. One version of the agreement dated 12th May, 1983 is attested by Mr. K.B. Madan, who is the father of Mrs. Mehru and the other version, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4 does not bear the signatures of Mr. K. B. Madan. However, the terms and conditions of the agreement and the text of the agreement are not disputed and are identical in both the versions. The agreement to sell is unregistered.

2. It is the case of Mrs. Mehru that Mrs. Savitri Jain was not interested and assigned her rights to her. The payment of Rs.1 lakh was made vide cheques dated 11th & 12th May, 1983. The sale deed was to be executed within two months from the date when permissions were obtained from the income tax authorities and other competent authorities. Mr. Nandi forwarded the income tax clearance certificate and a draft sale deed on 13th June, 1984. As per the draft sale deed, the outstanding consideration of Rs.15 lakhs was to be paid in two tranches of Rs.7 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs. The former was to be paid within 15 days of receipt of income tax clearance and the latter at the time of execution of the sale deed. As per the said draft, the possession was to be delivered within two months of the execution of the sale deed.

3. The terms and conditions of the draft sale deed were not agreeable to Mrs. Mehru, who called upon Mr. Nandi to execute the sale deed prior to 30th June, 1984, as per the conditions of the Agreement to Sell. It was not agreeable to Mrs. Mehru that the balance sale consideration was to be paid in two tranches and according to Mrs. Mehru she was willing to pay the entire amount at one go and also insisted on possession being handed over at the time of execution of the sale deed. Correspondence ensued between the parties and there was a complete stalemate in respect of payment of balance consideration and execution of the sale deed.

4. In the meantime, Mrs. Savitri Jain stated that she was no longer interested in the purchase and nominated Mrs. Mehru to go ahead with the transaction. She also informed Mr. Nandi to execute the sale deed in favour of Mrs. Mehru and give her suitable adjustment for the sum of Rs.50,000 paid by her. This letter dated 20th September, 1984 was disputed by Mr. Nandi. In view of the stalemate, finally, Mrs. Mehru filed a suit for specific performance seeking the following reliefs.

“(a) that a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12th May, 1983 be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against defendant No.1 in respect of the property bearing Nos. C-14A and C-15, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and the defendant No.1 be ordered and directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff or her nominee, on terms and conditions as set out in the Agreement;

(b) that in the event of sale deed not being executed by the defendant No.1 in terms of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, the same be executed by an Officer nominated by this Hon'ble Court to do so;

(c) in the alternative to prayer (a) & (b), if for any reasons, this Hon'ble Court does not pass a decree for specific performance of the agreement, the Plaintiff prays for a decree for damages against the defendant in the sum of Rs.16 lacs jointly and/or severally;

(d) that the defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff interest @18% per annum with monthly rests on th