1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court whereby her suit for specific performance has been dismissed.

2. The appellant instituted a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of property bearing plot No.A-32 & 33 measuring 200 sq. yds. out of Khasra No.1678, Village Aya Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”. For convenience, the appellant and the respondents are referred by their ranks in the suit as “plaintiff” and “defendant” respectively.

3. On 9th September, 2004, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for total sale consideration of 13,00,000/- out of which the plaintiff paid earnest money of 1,00,000/- to the defendant at the time of the sale agreement and agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration of 12,00,000/- within 30 days. 4. Vide legal notice dated 26th October, 2004, the defendant notified the plaintiff that the plaintiff had failed to make the payment of `12,00,000/- within 30 days of the agreement which expired on 8th October, 2004. The defendant further notified that she was still ready and willing to perform the agreement and, therefore, she granted 15 days extension to the plaintiff to make the payment of the balance sale consideration of 12,00,000/- on or before 15th November, 2004. The defendant notified the plaintiff to remain present in the Office of Sub-Registrar on 15th November, 2004 failing which the agreement would stand cancelled and the earnest money of 1,00,000/- would stand forfeited.

5. Vide reply dated 8th November, 2004, the plaintiff stated that she had approached the defendant before the expiry of 30 days and repeatedly thereafter along with the balance sale consideration of 12,00,000/- but the defendant delayed the matter on the pretext that the sale permission from the concerned authorities for execution and registration of the sale deed could not been obtained by her.

6. On 23rd May, 2005, the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds inter alia :

(i) The defendant had purchased the suit property from Vijay Kumar on the basis of sale agreement dated 31st December, 1992; all the documents relating to the title of the defendant in respect of the suit property were shown by the defendant to the plaintiff and the photocopies thereof were given to the plaintiff much before the execution of the sale agreement dated 9th September, 2004 and the plaintiff executed the sale agreement after satisfying herself with respect to the same; and the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on „as it is basis? i.e. whatever documents the defendant had from the previous owner, same set of documents would be executed in favour of the plaintiff and the original documents as held by the defendant would be handed over to the plaintiff. The suit property was agreed to be sold on the basis of sale agreement, General Power of Attorney, receipt, etc. and no sale permission was agreed to be obtained by the defendant in respect of the suit property;

(ii) The plaintiff never approached the defendant within the period of 30 days stipulated under the agreement dated 9th September, 2004 as alleged by the plaintiff;

(iii) The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract as she could not arrange the balance sale consideration of `12,00,000/-; and

(iv) The plaintiff committed breach of the sale agreement by defaulting in making the payment of balance sale consideration of `12,00,000/- to the defendant in terms of the sale agreement within 30 days of the sale agreement or within even the extended period in terms of the legal notice dated 26th October, 2004 and, therefore, the sale consideration stood forfeited.

7. The plaintiff examined one witness to prove her case, namely, Mr. Jayant Ghadia,