( 1 ) THIS is defendant s appeal. Suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by judgment dated 24 December 1982 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of property being plot of land bearing No. H-45, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Defendant is the mother of Dina Nath who as owner entered into an agreement, to sell the aforesaid suit plot, with the plaintiff. The suit plot measures 200 sq. yds. and the sale consideration agreed to wasrs. 60,000. 00. A sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 was paid as advance by the plaintiff to Dina Nath and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. This agreement (Ext. Public Witness 2 /1) was registered with the Sub Registrar, New Delhi. Dina Nath was having perpetual leasehold rights in this suit plot under a lease deed granted by the President of India on 8 February 1977. Under the agreement to sell, Dina Nath was required to file an application with the Land and Development Office/competent Authority, Delhi, for obtaining permission to sell he suit plot and was also required to obtain income-tax clearance certificate from the income-tax department. Dina Nath was to inform the plaintiff within one week of having received the sale permission, etc. , and within 90 days of the receipt of such ission he was to complete the sale of the suit plot.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff on 20 May 1978 filed this suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell against Dina Nath. However, before any written statement could be filed Dina Nath died on 6 January 1979 and his mother, the appellant was substituted as his legal heir. The plaintiff said that defendant committed breach of the agreement to sell and that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. She said she had even purchased a bank draft for the balance amount of sale consideration, and had served a notice on the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant, who was now the mother of the deceased Dina Nath who had entered into the agreement to P53 sell, denied execution of any such agreement. She said the suit plot was in fact purchased by her in the name of her son Dina Nath who at the time of purchase of the suit plot was hardly about 19 years of age and had no money of his own to purchase any property. Dina Nath, she said, had no right to sell the plot and there was no question of his entering into any agreement to sell the same to the plaintiff. She said Dina Nath even could not think of selling the suit plot which he knew was benami in his name and the real owner was his mother. Defendant also said that the value of the suit plot in the yearl977was at leastr$. 1,40,000. 00 and the sale consideration could not, therefore, have been agreed to Rs. 60,000. 00. Defendant said that in fact a fraud had been committed on Dina Nath and that Dina Nath had become prey to a conspiracy of the husband of the plaintiff, who was himself a property broker, and few others who had taken advantage of the habits of Dina Nath. We may at this stage note that during the course of arguments before us it was submitted that Dina Nath had died in his room in Claridges Hotel, New Delhi, on 6 January 1979. The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint and also denied that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. In fact the defendant said such a plea in the plaint was frivolous, wrong and denied. It was also denied that any bank draft was ever sent to Dina Nath. The plaintiff also filed his replication reiterating what she had said in the plaint.

( 3 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether Dina Nath deceased executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, as alleged? If so, what are the terms ? 2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract ? 3. Whether agreement came into existence due to some conspi