ORDER

1. Didi Manjeet Kaur has filed this suit against Smt. Rekha Dagar and Maa Gayatry Properties, Defendants 1 and 2 respectively seeking specific performance of an agreement-cum-receipt dated 22nd June 2007 whereby Defendant No.1 agreed to sell to the Plaintiff the property being MIG Flat No. 96, Third Floor, Block-A-2, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110085 shown in red in the site plan (hereafter `suit property') in favour of the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff describes herself as an Indian born American citizen. She has filed this suit through her attorney Smt. Meena Rani, a resident of Rohini, Delhi. The Plaintiff states that Smt. Meena Rani is her maternal aunt and that she executed a General Power of Attorney (`GPA') dated 19th September 2007 in her favour. The original of the GPA has been placed on record by the Plaintiff.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that pursuant to negotiations that took place between Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff's power of attorney (`PoA') and husband a receipt-cum-agreement dated 11th June 2007 was prepared by the property dealer, Defendant No.2. It is stated that the sale consideration was settled at Rs.28.50 lakhs. Rs.50,000 was paid as earnest money to Defendant No.1. According to the Plaintiff, the balance sum of Rs.28 lakhs was to be paid by August 2007. A sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs towards tax, water and electricity bills was to be paid by Defendant No.1 before 14th June 2007.

4. The Plaintiff states that since Defendant No.1 could not arrange to pay for water, tax and electricity, a further sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1. A fresh consolidated receipt dated 22nd June 2007 for the sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was executed by Defendant No.1. A `Bayana Agreement' was also executed and typed on a stamp paper. Under the Bayana Agreement it was agreed that the balance sum of Rs.24 lakhs "shall be paid by the second party to the first party on or before 14th August 2007". The original of the said Bayana Agreement has been placed on record. It has been attested by two persons. It has been signed by the Plaintiff and the maternal uncle of the Plaintiff, Shri Devender Singh.

5. The Plaintiff states that at the time of negotiations, the Plaintiff was informed that a loan had been obtained from HSBC Bank by deposit of title deed and that Defendant No.1 still has to pay the balance sum of Rs.15 lakhs. With the sale deed not being executed in terms of the Bayana Agreement, Defendant No.1 insisted that a further sum of Rs.15 lakhs should be paid by the Plaintiff to enable Defendant No.1 to clear the loan and retrieve the original title deeds. It is further averred that Defendant No.2 represented to the Plaintiff that he could get the time for execution of sale deed extended by one month if the Plaintiff paid Rs.40,000 which was one month's interest on the loan amount which Defendant No.1 had to pay to the HSBC Bank. The Plaintiff states that she readily agreed to pay the said sums which she gave to Defendant No.2. On 13th August 2007 when the Plaintiff's PoA contacted the Defendants to enquire if the loan amount of the HSBC Bank had been cleared, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming.

6. The Plaintiff states that with the Defendants not coming forth to execute the sale deed, a legal notice dated 11th September 2007 was sent which was answered by Defendant No.1 in an evasive manner. In the above background, the present suit was filed seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement-cum-receipt dated 22nd June 2007 and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit property.

7. While issuing summons in the suit and notice in the application IA No. 12793 of 2007, the Court restrained Defendant No.1 from creating any third party interest in the suit property.

8. The prayer of Defendant No.2 to be deleted as a party to the suit, was declined by an order dated 5th March 2008.

9. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW-1 Smt. Meena Rani and PW-2