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

• Subject Matter: The case concerns a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale regarding a plot of land in Chandigarh. (!) (!)
• Parties Involved: The appellant (Man Kaur, the vendor) appealed against the respondent (Hartar Singh Sangha, the purchaser), who was a Non-Resident Indian. (!) (!)
• Agreement Terms: An agreement dated 20.10.1978 was executed where the sale price was Rs. 1,50,000/- (or Rs. 1,60,000/- if vacant possession of the entire premises could be delivered). Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money, and the sale was to be completed by 20.12.1978. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Breach Allegations: The vendor alleged that the purchaser failed to pay the balance consideration on the stipulated date (7.6.1979) despite being present at the Sub-Registrar's office, and that the purchaser's lack of funds constituted a breach, leading to the forfeiture of the earnest money. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Lower Courts' Findings: The trial court, District Judge, and High Court held that the plaintiff was duly authorized, time was not of the essence, the plaintiff was ready and willing, and the defendant was in breach, thus decreeing specific performance. (!) (!)
• Appellant's Contentions: The appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness because the plaintiff did not appear in the witness box, and the attorney holder examined had no personal knowledge of the transaction. The appellant also argued that the agreement only provided for damages, not specific performance. (!) (!) (!)
• Legal Principle on Readiness and Willingness: Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform their obligations. This is a condition precedent for specific performance. (!) (!)
• Evidentiary Requirement for Principal: Generally, the principal must give evidence regarding their own state of mind and conduct (readiness and willingness). An attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal for matters involving personal knowledge unless the principal has no knowledge at all. (!) (!) (!)
• Facts Regarding Evidence: The plaintiff neither signed the agreement nor the plaint nor gave evidence. The attorney holder (Jagtar Singh Sangha) examined had no personal knowledge of the transaction prior to his appointment in 1980. The property dealer (Balraj Singh) could not testify to the plaintiff's internal readiness or financial capacity. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Conclusion on Readiness and Willingness: The Supreme Court held that there was no acceptable or valid evidence of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The plaintiff's failure to appear and testify, combined with the lack of personal knowledge in the witnesses examined, resulted in the failure to comply with Section 16(c). (!) (!)
• Specific Performance vs. Damages: Even if the agreement provides for liquidated damages, specific performance can be enforced unless the contract clearly gives the defaulting party an option to pay money in lieu of performance. In this case, the agreement did not bar specific performance. (!) (!) (!)
• Final Ruling: The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the suit for specific performance was dismissed. The earnest money stood forfeited. (!) (!)