The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the principles of privity of contract, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, and the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as the first appellate Court) whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 preferred against judgment & decree dated 8.3.2002 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh (referred to hereinafter as the trial Court) was accepted and her suit for specific performance was decreed against defendant-appellant with costs.

2. Initially, the plaintiff had sought a decree of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from transferring or alienating in any manner House No. 182, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh (called hereinafter as the suit property) to any other person except her. Later on, she amended the plaint and the suit was converted into that for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.7.1994 executed by defendant no.l-Smt.Gurbax Kaur in favour of defendant no.2-Amarjit Singh and agreement to sell dated 10.8.1994 executed by defendant no.2 in her favour. It was pleaded that by the said agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, the suit property was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of Rs.9,60,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid as earnest money and prior to that, the sale price agreed to be paid by defendant no.2 was Rs.8, 85,000/-. In the case of defendant no.2, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.10.1994, whereas in the case of the plaintiff, it was to be done by 20.10.1994. It was specifically mentioned in the agreement to sell in favour of defendant no.2 that the purchaser had a right to get the sale effected in his own name or in the name of his nominee and he could have entered into an agreement to sell with any person at any price and the seller could not have any objection to that. Similar stipulation was made in the agreement to sell executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the plaintiff.

3. A no objection certificate was obtained by defendant no.l from the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed was to be got registered by 15.11.1994. It was averred that the plaintiff along with the balance sale consideration attended the office of the Sub Registrar, Chandigarh on 20.10.1994, but the defendants did not come present. It was further averred that she also contacted the mediator through whom the deal was finalised, but to no effect and the legal notice served by her also did not yield any result. It was pleaded that the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform her part of contract, whereas the defendants backed out.

4. Upon notice, the defendants appeared, but only defendant no.l filed written statement contesting the suit, whereas defendant no.2 did file any reply.

5. A number of preliminary objections were raised by defendant no.l and the suit was stated to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC.

6. It was pleaded that there was no privity of contract inter se between the plaintiff and defendant no.l and the suit for specific performance was not maintainable in law. It was denied that defendant no.2 was authorised to sell the suit property under condition no.8 of the agreement to sell executed in his favour. It was further denied that no objection certificate from the Estate Office was obtained for the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 pleaded that she did not deal with the plaintiff at any time in respect of agreement to sell dated 10.8.1994 and the transaction, if any, entered into at the behest of mediator Shri Manohar Singh Gulati was not at her instance. It was averred that the legal notice was received on behalf of the plaintiff, but it was validly and legally ignored.

7. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property through specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 2.7.94 as alleged in the