JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 19.10.2006 in Appeal Suit No. 725 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 96 of the C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S. No. 655 of 1992 directing the appellant herein to execute and register the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 19.8.1991 in favour of the respondent herein and deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to her within the prescribed time.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal as stated in the S.L.P. are as under:- On 06.11.1957, the grand father of the appellant herein settled an extent of Acres 0.62 cents of vacant land situated in Vidhyadahara puram, Vijaywada with old demarcation No. 48/2A, Revenue Survey No. 12/23 in favour of the appellant herein. The appellant and her husband had borrowed amounts from the respondent herein from time to time for family expenses and other purposes which came to Rs.1,50,000/-. When the respondent demanded the amount, the appellant showed her inability to pay the said amount and she made proposal to the respondent to join as a partner in the proposed partnership firm to be commenced by her. The respondent accepted for the same and the understanding between them came into writing in the year 1988. However, the firm was dissolved before its formation. Again, the respondent demanded the money. At that stage, the appellant had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent on 19.8.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of discharge of amount. The appellant had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her son permitting him to execute the sale deed on her behalf. However, she cancelled the sale deed on 06.08.1992 without informing the respondent. On 10.8.1992, the appellant got issued a notice demanding the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 30.8.1986 and have the sale executed and registered. The respondent responded to the notice through her advocate denying any liability of making the payment of Rs.50,000/- and that time cannot be made the essence of the contract. The respondent herein filed suit for specific performance of contract of sale based on the sale agreement dated 19.8.1991. On 8.2.2000, the trial Court decreed the suit and the defendant was directed to execute and register the sale deed within the time prescribed in the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed Appeal Suit No. 725 of 2000 in the High Court. On 19.10.2006, the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal suit. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court is justified in granting decree for specific performance in respect of the suit property and the High Court is right in affirming the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant.

6. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a settlement deed executed by her grand-father on 06.11.1957 and the same is in her possession and enjoyment. Since the plaintiff and defendant are related, the defendant had agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant had borrowed amount from the plaintiff for her family expenses and other purposes from time to time up to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. When the plaintiff had demanded the s