S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) THIS Order will dispose of the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for an Injunction for restraining the defendants from dealing, selling alienating. transferring and encumbering in any manner and parting with possession of the whole or any part of the land comprised in Khasra numbers as mentioned in the application situated in a village Dera Mandi, Tehsll Mehrauli, New Delhi and further from executing any document and getting the same registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar so as to create right in favour of the third party. ( 2 ) THE case as set up in the plaint is that defendants 1 to 3 had offered to sell their land in village Dera Mandi, Tehsll Mehrauli, New Delhi to the plaintiffs and after negotiations, it was finally agreed by the said defendants to sell approximately 3. 75 acre of land for Rs. 29. 91,000. 00 and after rounding up the figure, It was agreed that the plaintiffs will pay a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs In all for the aforesaid land measuring 3. 75 acres to the defendants. ( 3 ) IT is stated that negotiations between the parties had taken place with an active role of defendant No. 4 and the defendants had intimated to the plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs to defendant No. 4. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs is stated to have been paid by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 4 and a receipt was also executed by the said defendant. It Is also alleged that after receipt of the aforesaid amount, the defendants 1 to 3 were required to obtain necessary no objection certificate by approaching the revenue authorities. The said certificate is allegedly required in view of the provisions contained in Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act. 1972. The said defendants are alleged to have applied to the revenue authorities for obtaining the no objection certificate and the revenue authorities had granted necessary permission/no objection. However, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and had refused to sell the property in spite of their having obtained a no objection certificate. 1972. The said defendants are alleged to have applied to the revenue authorities for obtaining the no objection certificate and the revenue authorities had granted necessary permission/no objection. However, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and had refused to sell the property in spite of their having obtained a no objection certificate. The presentsuit has,therefore, been filed for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell and for a direction to the defendants to execute necessary sale deed in respect of the land forming part of the Khasra mentioned in the plaint being situated in village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. Alternatively, it has been claimed that in case it is not possible to specifically perform the agreement, damages to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs should be directed to be paid to the plaintiffs. Along with the suit, an application for injunction was also filed seeking reliefs in the above terms. ( 4 ) REPLY to the application as well as written statement to the plaint was filed by the defendants after they were duly served with summons of the suit. The defendants have denied any knowledge of the alleged agreement to sell. They have also denied the receipt of any amount as consideration money for sale of the aforesaid land in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is, therefore, stated to be not maintainable as there was no agreement to sell between the parties. The suit is stated to have been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No. 4. The said defendant is admittedly a property broker of the village. It is also stated that defendants 1 to 3 did at one time express their desire to sell the property to defendant No. 4. Defendants 1 to 3 are illiterate persons and it has been alleged that the said defendant No. 4 had got thumb impression of the defendants 1 to 3 on certain papers, which had not been filled up, so as to enable the said defendant to find out if the property was free from acquisition. Not only that the said documents are stated to have been misused by defendant No. 4 but it is also stated that the said defendant did not have any authority to accept any money on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3. Not only that the said documents are stated to have been misused by defendant No. 4 but it is also stated that the said defendant did not have any authority to accept any money on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3. ( 5 ) EXCEPT for the receipt executed by defendant No. 4, there is no other agreement between the parties whereby defendant Nos. 1 to 3 might have agreed to sell the property to plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that agreement to sell was oral. The point for consideration is whether any case has been made out for the grant of an injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating or selling the property of which admittedly they are the owners. The contention raised by the plaintiffs is that there cannot be any prohibition in the specific performance of an oral agreement to sell. He has referred to a judgment reported as AIR 1938 Calcutta 136 in support of his contention that even an oral agreement to sell can be specifically performed. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition that an oral agreement to sell can be specifically performed. However, the burden of proving such an agreement lies very heavily upon the plaintiffs. Whether the plaintiff has been able to discharge this onus that there was an oral agreement to sell and he has performed all the obligations of the said oral agreement is a question which is considered at this stage as the grant or refusal of injunction is dependent upon this question. It is not disputed that no payment has been made to any of the defendants 1 to 3 and the amount of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs which is stated to be an advance for purchase of the property has been allegedly paid to defendant No. 4. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the said defendant No. 4 had acted as an agent of defendants 1 to 3 and, therefore, accepted this money on behalf of the said defendants. It is also contended that it was pursuant to the oral agreement to sell that defendants 1 to 3 had applied for no objection certificates seeking permission from the revenue authorities for sate of the property in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also contended that it was pursuant to the oral agreement to sell that defendants 1 to 3 had applied for no objection certificates seeking permission from the revenue authorities for sate of the property in favour of the plaintiffs. Sixteen applications were made to the revenue authorities for the grant of no objection certificate and the no objection certificate was issued on 31. 1. 1994. The payment to defendant No. 4 is alleged to have been made on 3/4th January, 1994, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the plaintiffs, contended that applications for grant for permission/no objection certificate made by defendants 1 to 3 for sale of the property conclusively prove that there Mas an oral agreement to sell between the parties and pursuant to the said agreement, the said defendants had applied for the grant of permission. ( 6 ) PRIMA facie I am unable to agree to the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. As held by the Supreme Court In Brij Mohan and Others Vs. Sugra Begam JT 1990 (3) SC 255, in the case of immovable properties when a party comes forward to seek decree for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell. heavy burden lies upon him to prove that there was consensus ad-idem between the parties for 7. concluded oral agreement for sate. The plaintiffs must establish that vital and fundamental terms for sate were concluded. In the present case, except for the implications whereby permission/no objection had been sought from the revenue authorities, there is nothing on record to indicate that defendants 1 to 3 had at any Mime agreed to sell any part of their property. The plaint is conspicuously silent as to when the alleged agreement had been entered into between the parties. It also does not elaborate as to what was the necessity of making payment of the a Neged advance of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs to defendant No. 4. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that ^aexldefendants 1 to 3 were not available and it was in these circumstances that they and paid money by advance to defendant No. 4. 4. 10 lakhs to defendant No. 4. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that ^aexldefendants 1 to 3 were not available and it was in these circumstances that they and paid money by advance to defendant No. 4. lt does not appear reasonable that when the owners of the property were available and allegedly had agreed to sell part of the land holdings to the alleged purchaser, the advance money would be paid by the alleged purchaser to a third party and not to the owners of the property. It creates suspicion that all is not well with the alleged oral agreement to sell. Even the dates have not been mentioned as to when the terms of the alleged agreement were settled and as to what were the terms and within how much time the deal was to br concluded. . In the receipt alleged to have been given by defendant No. 4, even particulars of land have not been given. In the said receipt, It is also not mentioned as to who was the owner of the property and as to what were the terms of payment. No power of attorney or letter of authority has been placed on record to indicate that defendant No. 4 was authorised to accept payment on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 Prima facie, therefore, I am in agreement with Mr. V. K. Makhija, learned counsel for the defendants, that no agreeraent was entered into beteween the parites Supreme court in Brij Mohan and Others Vs. Smt. Sugra Begum and Others has, while dealing with an oral agreement to sell, held :- "we have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. We agree with the contention of the Learned counsel for the appellants to the extent that there is no requirement of law that an agreement or contract of sale of immovable property should only be in writing. However, in a case where the plaintiffs come forward to seek a decree for specific performance of contract of sate of immovable property on the baste of an oral agreement atone, heavy burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that there was consensus ad-idem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement for sale of immovable property. However, in a case where the plaintiffs come forward to seek a decree for specific performance of contract of sate of immovable property on the baste of an oral agreement atone, heavy burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that there was consensus ad-idem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement for sale of immovable property. Whether there was such a concluded oral contract or not Would be a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It has to be established by the plaintiffs that vital and fundamental terms for sale of Immovable property were concluded between the parties orally and written agreement If any to be executed subsequently would only be a formal agreement incorporated such terms which had already been settled and concluded in the oral agreement. " ( 7 ) AS held by Karnataka High Court in AIR 1988 NOC 40, the four necessary ingredients of agreement to sell are certainty as to particulars of consideration, certainty as to party i. e. the vendor and the vendee, certainty as to the property to be sold and certainty as to other terms relating to probable cost of conveyance to be borne by the parties, time etc. When these ingredients are lacking either In written agreement or oral agreement, the obligation contemplated under Section 16 for specific performance for conveying immovable property would not arise. As I have held earlier; in the present case there is nothing on record to indicate that all the four ingredients mentioned above were agreed to by the parties. In the receipt alleged to have been signed by defendant No. 4 for the advance stated to have been paid to him by the plaintiffs, not only that, the details of the property were not given, it was also not mentioned as to on whose behalf the said amount was received. The terms of payment were not mentioned, nor the time limit within which the property was to be conveyed, was mentioned. Prima facie, therefore, 1 am of the opinion that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had not agreed to sell any part of their holdings to the plaintiff. The terms of payment were not mentioned, nor the time limit within which the property was to be conveyed, was mentioned. Prima facie, therefore, 1 am of the opinion that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had not agreed to sell any part of their holdings to the plaintiff. ( 8 ) EVEN assuming that defendants 1 to 3 had at any time intended to sell their property in favour of the plaintiffs, to my mind, still there is no case for the grant of ad interim injunction. No payment has been made to any of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the only payment made is to defendant No. 4. The said defendant has not put in appearance. It is not clear, nor it is even alleged that the said defendant No. 4 had, intact, paid the whole of the said amount of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs to defendants 1 to 3. There is no allegation in the plaint that even after receipt of the said amount of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs, the defendants are not selling the property in favour of the plaintiffs. If, ultimately it is held that there was an agreement to sell between the parties and the plaintiffs is entitled to get the same specifically enforced, in my opinion, the plaintiffs right can be well protected by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 9 ) I, therefore, see no ground to allow this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order granted on 28th February, 1994 is hereby vacated. ( 10 ) ANY observation made in this order will not affect the merits of the case.