Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant No. 1/1 and Shri Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. Controversy involved in the present case is that Sri Syed Mohd. Mutahir Rizvi (now deceased) in the capacity of General Agent/power of Attorney Holder of the other appellants/defendants/co-owners, namely, Syed Mohd. Tahir Rizvi, Smt. Kahrim Nisan, Akhtarun Nisan, entered into an agreement dated 6.5.1974 with Sri Subhash Singh/plaintiff (now deceased) for selling of a house situated in Lakhipur City, Mohalla Nai Basti, Near Sadar Chauraha in which City Post Office is a tenant (hereinafter referred as the premises) bounded as under :

East - House of Smt. Raj Rani W/o Gurbachan Singh

West - Main Road

North - Kharanja Road

South - Rental House of Keshav Company

3. While entering into an agreement for sale dated 6.5.1974 in respect to premises with plaintiffs/respondents, the appellants agreed to sell the same for Rs. 62,000/- out of which Rs. 7,000/- was paid as earnest money.

4. According to the terms of the agreement, the appellants/defendants had to apply for permission to District Magistrate. for transfer of the immovable property situated in the urban limits as at the relevant point of time, it was necessary to obtain the permission for transfer of the property situated in urban area from District Magistrate.

5. Further, as per the terms of the agreement necessary parvi to get the permission had to be done by the plaintiff/respondent (Subhash Singh) with the cooperation of the defendants and sale-deed to be executed within eight months after obtaining permission. In case permission was not obtained, the defendants/appellants were at liberty to forfeit earnest money but at the same time they have to offer their full cooperation in that direction, as per clause/item No. 5 of the agreement if due to some discrepancy on behalf of the appellants/defendants sale for consideration is refused, earnest money would be refunded. Clause-IV and V /Item of the agreement are quoted herein below :

^^c;ukek gj gkyr esa vkt dh rkjh[k ls 8 ekg gks tk;sxk ml vlkZ ds chp esa tc Hkh btktr fey xbZ mlh oDr c;ukek dj nsaxs vxj fdlh otg ls 8 ekg dh eqn~nr rd btktr u feyh gks rks ges gd gksxk fd ge bl c;kuk dks okil u djs ftlesa [kjhnkj dks dksbZ ,rjkt u gksxkA btktr fd iSojh [kjhnkj lqHkk"k flag gh djsaxs ftlesa tks Hkh dkuwuh nj[okLr o~ ,fQMsfoV nsus gksaxs gesa mlesa dksbZ ,rjkt u gksxkA btktr ysus esa Hkh [kpZ gksxk mldh ge cspus okys vnk djsaxsA

fdlh [kkeh dh otg ls gekjh nj[okLr btktr okil feyus ds flyflys esa [kkfjt gks xbZ rks ge vkidk c;kuk okil dj nsaxsA vr% ;g eqvkfgnk gks'k o gokl dh nq:Lrh esa fy[k fn;k rkfd lun jgs vkSj le; ij dke ykosA

6. As per the said clause of the agreement, an application has been moved by the appellants/defendants in order to get the permission for sale of the premises to the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri through counsel and parvi in respect of the said act has been done by the plaintiff/respondent.

7. On 22.7.1974, a letter was sent from the office of the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri through counsel to the appellant/defendant/Shri Syed Mohd. Mutahir Rizvi through counsel inter alia stating therein about the requirements which has to be done within 15 days in order to get the permission for transfer of the premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent has sent an information to the defendant/appellant No. 1 to carry out his part of obligation as per the letter dated 22.71974, however, no steps were taken. So on 16.8.1974, District Magistrate had rejected the application for grant of permission.

8. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent sent a letter as well as his father/Sri Havili Ram to defendant/appellant No. 1/Sri Syed Mohd. Mutahir Rizvi who resides at Balrampur with a request to come to Lakhipur in order to perform the legal obligations required to be done in order to obtain the permission for transfer of the house su