Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This defendant’s appeal has arisen from judgment and decree dated 17.5.2006 and 25.5.2006, respectively, passed by Sri Salim Ahmad Khan, Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Agra in Original Suit No. 306 of 1995 decreeing aforesaid suit and directing Defendants-1 and 2 to execute sale-deed enforcing agreement dated 23.6.1993 in favour of Plaintiff-3 who is nominated by Plaintiffs-1 and 2, within two months since they have already paid entire outstanding dues of Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) in Original Suit No. 458 of 1986, failing which execution of decree shall be made by getting sale-deed executed by Court. Defendant-2 in suit is the appellant before this Court.

2. Original Suit No. 306 of 1995 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra by two plaintiffs, i.e., M/s. Unjha Ayurvedic Pharmacy and Sri Nitin Shah. Subsequently by filing an application under Order 22 Rule 10 in January, 2006, Plaintiff-3, Sri Arvind Kumar Bajaj was sought to be impleaded on the ground that a deed of assignment was executed by Plaintiffs-1 and 2 in favour of Sri Arvind Kumar Bajaj on 10.9.2004. Court allowed application and Sri Arvind Kumar Bajaj was impleaded as Plaintiff-3.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

3. Plaint case is that Plaintiff-1 is a Firm duly registered under Partnership Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1890”). Plaintiff-2 is one of the registered partner of Plaintiff-1-Firm. Defendants-1 and 2, Sri Dau Dayal and Smt. Beena Agarwal are owners of 1865 sq. yards land forming part of Khasra No. 785 and 786, situate in Mauza Mau, Tehsil and District Agra, whereupon they had raised a masonry structure of Kothi without any flooring or plastering or fixing of any doors or door frames etc. Defendants- 1 and 2 contracted for sale of aforesaid land alongwith construction to Plaintiff-1 through Plaintiff-2 for a consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-, whereagainst Rs. 1 lac was paid by Plaintiffs- 1 and 2 in advance to Defendants-1 and 2.

4. Defendants-1 and 2 were to obtain necessary “no objection” from Income Tax Department under Section 230 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1961”) and also “no objection” from Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”). Thereafter they had to execute sale-deed in favour of Plaintiff-1 within three months after receiving balance consideration. The agreement for sale was executed by Defendants-1 and 2 in favour of Plaintiff-1 on 22.6.1993. Agreement for sale also contains covenants that property in suit was mortgaged by Defendants- 1 and 2, as Guarantors, to Bank in respect of some financial assistance/loan advanced to M/s. Tara Industries and for recovery thereof Bank has filed Original Suit No. 458 of 1986, which is pending. It was mentioned in the agreement for sale that Principal Debtors would settle amount, to be paid, after negotiation with Bank and Defendants-1 and 2 would pay amount due to Bank and clear off the encumbrance. If for any reason Defendants-1 and 2 failed to clear off said dues within time, Plaintiffs-1 and 2 may deposit the same with Bank on behalf of Defendants-1 and 2 and adjust said amount towards balance of price and take back original title deed from Bank. Defendants- 1 and 2 also put Plaintiff-2 in possession of land and construction thereon on 23.6.1993 and in acknowledgment of giving such possession a written document was executed on 23.6.1993 in favour of Plaintiffs-1 and 2.

5. Plaintiffs-1 and 2 were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract but Defendants- 1 and 2 did not take steps for obtaining “no objection” from concerned authorities and also did not settle amount, outstanding and payable, to Bank.

6. A telegraphic notice dated 18.9.1993 was served by plaintiffs upon Defendants-1 and 2 through Sri Jagidish Chand Gupta, Advocate, requesting them to fulfill their part of contract and execute sale-deed by