JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 4.3.2011 with respect to property bearing Flat No. C-8/54-A, Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035.

2. The plaintiff in the plaint contends that by an Agreement dated 4.3.2011 the defendant agreed to sell the said property with freehold rights of the land under the property for consideration of Rs.29,50,000/-. At the time of the Agreement the plaintiff is stated to have made an advance payment of Rs.3 lacs and a receipt to the said effect was executed by the defendant. The balance amount of Rs.26,50,000/-was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on or before 5.6.2011, the date of completion of the transaction. It is averred in the plaint that immediately after execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 4.3.2011 the price of the properties started escalating in Delhi including the price of the suit property. Hence, it is stated that the defendant sought to wriggle out of the transaction and wrote a letter dated 24th May, 2011 where it was stated that the mother of the defendant was suffering from cancer and that when the mother was informed about the sale she became emotional. Hence, it is further stated in the letter that on 10.3.2011 the defendant had requested the plaintiff to take back the advance payment of Rs.3 lacs and that the plaintiff had agreed to consider the same. The defendant stated that due to the said circumstances he was unable to sell the flat. The plaintiff has his reply to the said letter on 31.5.2011 denied the contentions of any oral discussions. It was stated in the letter that the plaintiff is waiting for sale deed after paying the balance payment of Rs.26,50,000/-. It is further averred that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is stated that the plaintiff had got bank drafts of Rs.26,50,000/-prepared in the name of the defendant on 4.6.2011. The said demand drafts were arranged by Shri Rajneesh Sharma from his joint Accounts. It is further stated that on 5.6.2011 which was a Sunday, the plaintiff again requested the defendant to receive the balance consideration in the Office of Sub-Registrar the next day and that the plaintiff also went to the Office of Sub-Registrar on 6.6.2011 and marked his presence there but to no effect. The plaintiff vide letter dated 6.6.2011 informed the defendant that he was present in the Office of Sub-Registrar on 6.6.2011 with the balance amount in the form of Bank drafts. On the basis of the above averment the present suit has been filed seeking a decree of Specific Performance.

3. The defendant has entered appearance and filed his written statement. The defendant has stated in his Written Statement that his financial condition was not well on account of expenses in the treatment of his mother and it was due to this that the defendant decided to sell the only dwelling house in the name of the defendant It is stated that prior to the Agreement to Sell the defendant met the plaintiff through one neighbour and the plaintiff showed all his sympathy and agreed that in case the defendant wants to cancel the deal then the plaintiff would not have any objection and the defendant should simply return the advance payment. This arrangement was worked out with the plaintiff as defendant had apprehension that his mother may not agree to the sale of the said flat and in her ailing condition the defendant would not be able to say no to her wishes. Based on the said assurance of the plaintiff it is stated that the defendant agreed to execute the Agreement dated 4.3.2011. It is further stated that when the Agreement was disclosed to the ailing mother by the defendant she got upset and could not be controlled by the defendant and the defendant promised his mother that the deal may be cancelled as already informed to the plaintiff. It is further averred in the written statement that pursuant to the said developmen