Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2005 whereby the suit filed by the respondents for declaration was decreed in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant and respondents entered into an agreement to sell 4/7th share of the property belonging to the respondents bearing Nazul Plot No. 38, Company Bagh, Civil Lines, Mathura dated 2.6.02 and it was stipulated between the parties that the complete payment of the said property would be made by the appellant by 31.8.02. That due to the failure of the appellant to pay the requisite amount by the said date, the respondents No. 1 to 3 rescinded the contract vide notice dated 26.10.02 and filed a suit for declaration of the same which vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.05 was decreed in favour of the respondents holding that the agreement was rightly terminated by the respondent No. 1 to 3. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Respondent No. 4, however, being a performa respondent had sold her 1/7th share to the appellant vide a separate sale deed dated 9.4.2003 and during the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 8.6.04 and 24.11.04 also sold their respective shares to the appellant.

3. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree on the point of jurisdiction, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 was clearly hit by Section 16 (Clauses a to f) of CPC, as the Courts at Delhi lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit filed by the respondents. Elaborating this argument, counsel further submitted that by seeking the declaration in their favour, the respondents No. 1 to 3 sought to enforce the right flowing from the immovable property and not independent of the immovable property. Counsel further contended that the said issue being legal, the same can even be considered by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd & Anr. (2005) 7 SCC page 79 : 2006 (86) DRJ 129[SC] with special emphasis on paras 16, 31 and 33.

4. On the merits of the case, counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice to rescind the agreement, as envisaged in Clause 3 of the agreement to sell dated 2.6.2002, was given by the respondents to the appellant. Inviting attention of this Court to the legal notice dated 26.10.2002, counsel submitted that the respondents have not given any notice of termination, but in fact rescinded the agreement straightway through the said notice itself and such termination notice was clearly in contravention of clause 3 of the said agreement. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the respondents had suppressed a very vital fact from the learned trial court by not disclosing that the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, who were plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 2 before the learned trial court respectively, had sold their respective shares in favour of the appellant during the pendency of the said suit. Counsel further stated that the photocopies of the sale deeds executed by these respondents in favour of the appellant have been placed on record. He further stated that it was only the respondent No. 1, who was plaintiff No. 1 before the learned trial court, who did not come forward to sell his share to the appellant. Counsel thus contended that due to the said willful suppression on the part of the respondents, the learned trial court did not come to know about the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 having honoured the said agreement and, therefore, there would not have arisen any question of termination or rescission of the said agreement so far