JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, in Civil Suit No. 10-S/01 of 2017/2007, titled as Mrs. Meera Dewan and another versus Mrs. Neelam Rana, whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9th May, 2004, as also supplemental agreement dated 1st October, 2004 and for permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction filed by the present appellants against the respondent stood dismissed by the learned Court below.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are as under: The appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs’) filed a suit praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant and call upon her to execute and register a Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiff No. 2, in respect of land and building comprising Khewat No. 50 Min, Khatauni No. 52 Min and Khasra No. 191/188/137/12, measuring One Bigha situate in Mauza Mashobra, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan, H.P.

(b) Grant a decree of permanent perpetual and prohibitory injunction in favour of Plaintiff No 2, and against the defendant restraining her from interfering in any manner whatsoever in his peaceful exclusive use, occupation and possession of the suit property i.e. land and building comprising Khewat No. 50 Min, Khatauni No. 52 Min and Khasra No. 191/188/137/12, measuring One Bigha situate in Mauza Mashobra, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan, H.P.

(c) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending to the case.”

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 9th May, 2004, which was followed by a supplemental agreement dated 1st October, 2004, in respect of land and building bearing Khewat No. 50 Min, Khatauni No. 52 Min and Khasra No. 191/188/137/12, measuring One Bigha, situated in Mauza Mashobra, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. After the execution of the agreement dated 9th May, 2004, an application was filed by plaintiff No. 1 seeking permission for purchase of land under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The total sale consideration of two agreements, i.e. Rs.27.00 lac stood received by the defendant as per the following details mentioned in para 4 of the plaint:-

“(a) Demand Draft No. 303529, dated 3rd October, 2003, issued by State Bank of Saurashtra, New Delhi, and drawn on the State Bank of Patiala, Kasauli. Rs. 7,00,000/-

(b) Pay Orders/ Manager’s Cheques, dated 28.9.2004, drawn on the Citibank Jeewan Bharti, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, as per details hereinbelow:-

4. Receipt dated 01.10.2004 was also executed by the defendant as an acknowledgment of the payments. Though, plaintiff No 1 applied for the grant of requisite permission under Section 118 of 1972 Act, in May, 2004, yet neither any permission stood granted by the Authorities in her favour, nor it stood rejected. Therefore, sale deed in favour of plaintiff No. 1 could not be executed. As per the plaintiffs, time was never the essence of the agreement. Plaintiff No. 1 received a notice dated 21.02.2007 from Shri M.P. Kanwar, Advocate, on the instructions of the defendant, whereby defendant resiled from the aforesaid agreement by falsely claiming that “the Agreement was mutually cancelled orally and the accounts were adjusted”. Said notice was replied to by plaintiff No. 1, who while denying the contents of the same called upon the defendant to withdraw the notice. Thereafter, plaintiff No.