Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court held that an agreement of sale of property signed by the vendor alone and delivered to and accepted by the purchaser, though not signed by the purchaser, is a valid agreement enforceable under Section 10 and Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court clarified that an agreement to sell property is valid even if it is oral, as per Sections 8, 10, and 25 of the Contract Act, 1872 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The specific issue in the appeal was whether an agreement of sale (Ext.2) executed only by the vendor and not by the purchaser is valid (!) .
• The Court rejected the argument that an agreement of sale is a unilateral contract, stating instead that all agreements of sale are bilateral contracts involving promises by both the vendor and the purchaser (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court ruled that an agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase for an agreed consideration; it can be oral, by exchange of communications, or by a document signed by only the vendor and delivered to the purchaser who accepts it (!) .
• The Court found that the specific format of the agreement in question, which appeared to require signatures from both parties, was intended to be executed only by the vendor based on the parties' conduct, including the vendor receiving further payments and endorsing acknowledgments on the document (!) (!) .
• The Court affirmed that the plaintiff satisfied the conditions under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to obtain a decree for specific performance (!) (!) .
• The appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased vendor was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court and the Division Bench of the High Court (!) (!) .