Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The beautiful natural relation of love, affection and mutual trust between the two sisters has been drifted apart for a small piece of land measuring 162 Sq. Mtrs.

These two first appeals have been preferred under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 27th of March, 2010 passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar in O.S. No. 584 of 2005 whereby the Court below has dismissed the suit so far as it relates to grant of permanent injunction and specific performance of contract to sell dated 18.5.2005 but decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,64,795/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 6 per cent per annum. The dispute relates to a residential plot No. 155 area 162 Sq. Mtrs. situate in Block D, Sector 50, NOIDA. The said parcel of land was admittedly allotted and sold for residential purposes by NOIDA Authority to Nisha Richhariya/defendant No. 1 and is not an ancestral property.

2. Smt. Prabha Awasthi, the plaintiff who is appellant in First Appeal No. 188 of 2005, instituted the above suit No. 584 of 2005 against Nisha Richhariya, defendant No. 1 (herein after called as defendant) and NOIDA Authority, defendant No. 2 with the allegations that the plaintiff and defendant are sisters and the defendant is her elder sister to whom the plot in dispute was allotted by NOIDA Authority in the year 2002. The defendant, on 18th of May, 2005 executed an agreement to sell and a general power of attorney in the presence of witnesses in her favour. It was agreed upon between the plaintiff and defendant that the plaintiff will pay the instalments and the other such sums which were required to be paid by the defendant in pursuance of the allotment of the plot in dispute to her, to the NOIDA Authority. In the plaint various payments made by the plaintiff to the NOIDA Authority have been detailed with the dates of payments, draft numbers, amount and names of the banks where on the bank drafts were drawn. In short, the plaintiff alleges that she has deposited a sum of Rs. 7,13,094/- with the defendant No. 2 and not a single shell was invested by the defendant. On 18th of May, 2005 an agreement to sell and general power of attorney were executed, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given in cash by the plaintiff to the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant became dishonest and under some conspiracy she got a news item published in newspaper “Nav Bharat” dated 26th of August, 2005 that she has lost a blue colour file at Satna which contained the original documents with regard to the said plot. On coming to know of the above advertisement, the plaintiff tried to impress upon defendant that her action is not justified and she is under obligation to execute the sale-deed. But the request was not acceded to, hence the suit.

3. In the suit, the plaintiff has claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, transferring the property in dispute permanently, a decree for specific performance of contract to sell dated 18th of May, 2005 and in alternative for refund of Rs. 7, 63,094/- alongwith penal interest @ 24 per cent and penalty.

4. Two sets of written statements were filed - One by the defendant No. 1 i.e. defendant and another by the defendant No. 2. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the material averments made in the plaint. She admitted the relationship between the parties but came out with the case that she applied for and was allotted the plot in dispute by the NOIDA Authority whereon the plaintiff has no right, title or interest. The defendant No. 2 on 15th of September, 2005 has already executed a sale-deed in her favour which is a registered document, thus, she is owner in possession of the property in dispute. She denied the execution of any agreement to sell or power of attorney by her in favour of the plaintiff. She claimed that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards the registration