GOKAL CHAND MITAL ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THE appellants have filed First Appeal Order (OS) against the order dated 28th January, 1993 passed in Indian Appeal NO. 6688/91 in Suit no. 1511/91. The brier facts which arc necessary to dispose of this First Appeal Order (OS) are recapitulated as under:- ( 3 ) THE appellants (the intending purchaser) entered into an agreement on 14th September, 1993 with the respondents Charanjit Singh Rekhi and Manjit Kaur Rekhi, (the intending vendors ). The respondents arc the owners of the agricultural lands, details of which are mentioned in the plaint, in New Delhi and Haryana. ( 4 ) A mortgage of the lands in question was created in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Green Park, New Delhi. The said Bank filed a Suit no. 268/83 in the High Court of Delhi and execution arising from the same is pending wherein the mortgagees are claiming about Rs. 90,00,000. 00 from the intending vendors. The interest on the said amount has mounted and the mortgagee is claiming all that in me suit. In older to clear the bank dues and settle the matter with them, the intending vendors approached the intending purchaser to purchase the property alongwith equity of redemption and clear the dues of the bank, as well to which the intending purchasers, agreed. ( 5 ) ON total consideration of Rs. 1,01,000. 00, the intending vendors agreed to sell, transfer and convey to the intending purchaser ownership of the lands in question. In the agreement, it is enumerated that the property subject to mortgage, decree passed by the High Court of Delhi in Suit no. 686 of 1993 in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank, wherein claim of about Rs. 90,00,000. 00 is being put forward by the bank as of today (when the agreement was executed ). The claim was disputed by the intending vendors. According to them, it was less than Rs. 90. 00 lakhs. The intending purchaser after getting the permission u/s 269-UA of the Income Tax Act was under an obligation to pay the entire amount within 30 days. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 1,01,00,000. 00, a sum of Rs. 3. 00 lakhs has been paid to the respondent and according to the terms of the agreement, the balance amount of Rs. 98. 00 lakhs was paid by the appellants to the Bank. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 1,01,00,000. 00, a sum of Rs. 3. 00 lakhs has been paid to the respondent and according to the terms of the agreement, the balance amount of Rs. 98. 00 lakhs was paid by the appellants to the Bank. It is clearly mentioned in the F. A. O. that several attempts to persuade respondent Rekhis to pay the money to the bank- had failed. They had tried to avoid the intending purchase/appellants. The respondent Rekhis had made themselves scarce and avoided the appellants and on 11. 1. 1991, the amount was given to Punjab and Sind Bank, meaning thereby that the entire consideration of Rs. 1. 00 crore 1. 00 lakh stood paid by the appellants. Despite the entire payment of money, the appellants could not get the possession of the premises in question and ultimately as a last resort on 7th May, 1991, filed a Suit for specific performance. Alongwith the Suit No. 1511/91, I. A. 6688/91 was filed for appointment of a Receiver. The application for appointment of Receiver came up for hearing on 7th January, 1993. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the order on 28th January, 1993. The learned Single Judge agreed that the appellants have paid the entire balance amount to the Punjab and Sind Bank directly. According to me learned Single Judge, the plaintiff is bound to tender the amount to the defendants. The learned Single Judge has further held that in the present case, the agreement between the parties is that balance sale consideration would be paid for the payment of the liabilities of the bank. The respondents were entitled to pay the decretal amount upto 31st January, 1991 and it was only after this date the plaintiffs got the right to deal with the bank as agreed by the defendants. The learned Single Judge declined to appoint Receiver in the instant case. The respondents were, however, restrained from alienating, selling, disposing of or otherwise parting with possession of the property. First Appeal Order (OS) which has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge says that despite the fact that the entire consideration of Rs. 1. 00 crore one lakh stood paid, still the possession has not been given to the appellants. First Appeal Order (OS) which has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge says that despite the fact that the entire consideration of Rs. 1. 00 crore one lakh stood paid, still the possession has not been given to the appellants. The appellants have assailed the judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that: a) admittedly Punjab and Sind Bank was a mortgagee b) the property had to be redeemed c) mere were orders by this court in Execution 32/85 d) the money had been first tendered in Court and outside court which Rekhis had declined. ( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge has held that a perusal of the agreement shows that interim payment in the present case is one of the essential terms of the agreement The plaintiff is bound to tender the amount to the defendants. In the present case, the agreement between the parties is that the balance sale consideration would be paid for payment of the liability of the bank. The respondents were entitled to pay the decretal amount upto 31st of January, 1991 and it was only after this date, the plaintiff got the right to deal with the property, as agreed by the defendants as mentioned in clause (3 ). ( 7 ) IN the First Appeal Order (OS), it is urged by the appellants that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was the defendants who were in breach and were trying to cause injury to the appellants/ plaintiffs. The amount has been paid by the appellants before 31. 1. 1991. On that account, no fault can really be found with the appellants. ( 8 ) EVEN according to the terms of the agreement between the parties, it will be open to the intending purchaser to settle the matter with me Punjab and Sind Bank by paying the money and thus redeeming the property and should any concessions be granted after the date 31. 1. 1991, the intending purchaser may seek refund of that amount from the bank directly. In short, the intention of the parties is that redemption of property should not be delayed beyond 31. 1. 1991. The intending vendors were claiming this concession On account of 1984 riots. 1. 1991, the intending purchaser may seek refund of that amount from the bank directly. In short, the intention of the parties is that redemption of property should not be delayed beyond 31. 1. 1991. The intending vendors were claiming this concession On account of 1984 riots. ( 9 ) WE have heard Learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the agreement and the other relevant documents. The position which clearly emerges in this case is, that the appellants have paid the entire amount. The amount was paid a few days before the stipulated date in the agreement. The appellants, both in law and equity, have a good case for possession of the property in question. Shri Arun Mohan, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 2985/87. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, and in the interest of justice, the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 28th January, 1993 is set aside. We appoint Shri Harish Malhotra, Advocate to take possession of the property in the suit after one week from today and hand over the possession to the appellants/plaintiffs. We direct the appellant/plaintiff not to transfer or part with possession of the property in any manner till the disp osal of the suit and hold the same subject to the orders of the court to be passed in the suit. The report to this effect be filed within two weeks from today. The Receiver shall be paid Rs. 5500. 00 besides other expenses by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal Order (OS) is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. ( 11 ) A copy of this order be sent to Mr. Malhotra during the course of the day.