The Agreement of Sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase, for an agreed sale consideration on agreed terms, and it can be oral or by exchange of communications. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is not required to prove being possessed of ready cash at all times.

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 5th January, 2015 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-06 (West) Delhi decreeing the suit bearing M.No.1/14 (Unique Case ID No.02401C1144952005) for specific performance filed by the respondent no.1 N.K. Mann against the appellant by directing the appellant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff after receiving the remaining sale consideration amount and declaring the Sale Deed dated 6th July, 2006 executed by the appellant and the respondent no.2 Pradeep Kumar Sharma in favour of the respondent no.3 Gurdeep Singh Grover as null and void and injuncting the appellant and the respondents no.2&3/defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. the roof of the first floor bearing no.63, situated in Block-E, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi.

2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 27th May, 2015 when notice thereof was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. The respondents/defendants no.2&3 failed to appear despite service and were vide order dated 11th January, 2016 proceeded against ex parte. Vide order dated 6th August, 2015 execution proceedings were stayed. When the appeal came up on 20th January, 2016, it was the contention of the senior counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff that the grounds contained in the Memorandum of Appeal do not show any substantial challenge to the decree for specific performance and that the appeal either was liable to be dismissed or the stay granted of execution liable to be vacated. The counsels were heard. After some hearing the counsel for the appellant under instructions from the appellant present in Court quoted an additional price subject to payment of which it was stated that the appellant was ready to withdraw the appeal. However the respondent no.1/plaintiff expressed inability to pay the additional amount. The matter was adjourned to 21st January, 2016 for further consideration. On 21st January, 2016 though the respondent no.1/plaintiff conveyed willingness for the proposal of the appellant but since the appellant was not present the matter was adjourned to 22nd January, 2016. On 22nd January, 2016 though the appellant was present but sought adjournment on the ground of non-availability of his Advocate and the matter was adjourned to 27th January, 2016. The Advocate for the appellant did not appear on 27th January, 2016 also and the appellant in person stated that the compromise as earlier proposed by him was not acceptable to him. In this circumstance, the appeal was listed for further hearing for today. Today the counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that the appellant has now backed off from the proposal for settlement given himself. The counsels have been heard further and the Trial Court record perused.

3. The respondent no.1/plaintiff on 13th December, 2005 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises impleading the appellant and the respondent no.2, who is the brother of the appellant, only as the defendants thereto and for specific performance of an Agreement dated 7th September, 2005 of sale of roof of the first floor of property no.63, Block-E, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. Though the appellant and the respondent no.2 defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint in the said suit but failed to file their written statement and ultimately their defence to the suit was struck off and the respondent no.1/plaintiff examined himself and his two witnesses who were cross-examined to the extent permissible by the counsel for the appellant and the respondent no.2/defendant. The suit, being suit no.254/2005, was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 3rd November, 2007.

4. The appellant only preferred RFA No.6/2008 thereagainst and which was disposed of vide order dated 10th December, 2013 by setting aside the decree for specific performan