Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order I shall dispose of the three pending applications filed by the parties, the detail of which are given as under:

(a) IA No. 4011/1992 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Plaintiff.

(b) IA No. 7308/2001 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for vacation of status-quo order passed on 30th April, 1992 filed by the Defendant No. 9.

(c) IA No. 7896/2008 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Defendants No. 2 to 6.

2. The common facts in the applications are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell entered into between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 8 in respect of property bearing No. 42/44, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The said property is jointly owned by the Defendant No. 1 (owner of 1/3rd undivided share), Defendant No. 7 (owner of 1/3rd undivided share) and Defendants No. 2 to 6 (joint owners of 1/3rd share).

3. The suit along with IA No. 4011/1992 was listed before this Court on 30th April, 1992. On that date, this Court while issuing summons in the main suit passed the interim orders in the application restraining the Defendants No. 1 to 6 and 8 from selling, alienating, transferring or encumbering their respective shares in the property.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that in or about April, 1989 the defendants approached the plaintiff with a proposal about the sale of two houses. After some negotiations a deal was struck between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other, whereby the defendants agreed to sell both the houses to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 1,53,00,000/-. Defendant No. 1 was to get a sum of Rs. 51 lacs towards her share in the property and similarly defendants No. 2 to 6 being one branch of the family were jointly to get Rs. 51 lacs for their share and likewise defendant No. 7, Smt. Pushpa Devi, was to get a sum of Rs. 51 lacs for her share in the property.

5. It is further submitted that documents in the form of separate receipts were prepared, witnessing the above transaction. So far as Smt. Bimla Devi, defendant No. 1, is concerned, she received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of pay order No. 015127 of Allahabad Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi, dated 23.4.1989 drawn in her name i.e. a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- through her son Sh. Umesh Kumar, defendant No. 8 who represented to the plaintiff that he had full authority to receive the consideration and sign the receipt for the same and had all the power to enter into any transaction of sale or otherwise on behalf of his mother, Smt. Bimla Devi. The pay order referred above was encashed by Smt. Bimla Devi in her account in the bank.

6. As far as defendants No. 2 to 6 are concerned, they also received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards earnest money/part consideration in respect of their 1/3rd share in the aforesaid properties and executed a receipt on 23.4.1989 witnessing the receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide pay order No. 015126 of Allahabad Bank, South Extension, New Delhi. The said receipt was signed by Sh. Mohinder Kumar Gupta and Sh. Deepak Gupta (defendants No. 2 and 5 herein) who represented to the plaintiff that they had the authority to sign on behalf of defendants No. 3,4 and 6 as well. The receipt of the amount towards part consideration was acknowledged by defendants No. 3, 4 and 6 later on as per the case of the plaintiff and the amount received by Sh. Mohinder Kumar, defendant No. 2 and Sh. Deepak Gupta, defendant No. 5, was shared by defendants No. 2 to 6. As far as defendant No. 7 is concerned, the case of the plaintiff is that she had agreed to sell her 1/3rd individual share to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 51,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 23.4.1989. According to the plai