GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. SAT NARAIN TULSIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 30th April, 2011 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge (Central-07) Delhi in Suit No.383/2010/1980 filed by the four appellants against Shri Sat Narain Tulsian being the predecessor of the respondents no.1 to 6 in this appeal) of dismissal of the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property No.H-3/11, Model Town, Delhi constructed over land ad measuring 1250 sq. yds.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued and though the appeal was accompanied with an application for interim relief but the same was not pressed. The Trial Court record was requisitioned. The appellants/plaintiffs however within about ten days moved another application for interim relief to restrain the respondents/defendants from demolishing the subject property. The said application came up before this Court on 11th August, 2011, in order of which date it was observed that the senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs was heard at length on the application for interim relief on the date when notice of the appeal was issued but upon the Court being not inclined to grant any interim relief had not pressed the application. The second application for interim relief was thus held to be in abuse of the process of the Court. The application was thus dismissed. The respondents/defendants on that date also informed that the subject property had already been sold by them. The respondent/defendant no.1Shri Raj Kumar Tulsian died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 9th November, 2011. The appellants/plaintiffs also sought impleadment of Smt. Veena Gupta to whom the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 had sold the property and the said application was also allowed on 9th November, 2011 and the said Smt. Veena Gupta impleaded as a respondent to the appeal (respondent no.9 as per the amended memo of parties). On the same date i.e. 9th November, 2011 the appeal was also admitted for hearing. Hearing of the appeal was expedited as some of the parties thereto are senior citizens. The senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and the counsel for the respondent/defendant no.3 have been heard. The counsel for the subsequent purchaser Smt. Veena Gupta and the counsel for the respondent/defendant no.3 have also filed written submissions/propositions of law which have been perused.

(3.) The appellants/plaintiffs on 12th May, 1980 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:-