VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 30.08.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to property bearing no. BH-269, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi. Specific performance has been decreed by simultaneously directing payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 07.09.2007 entered into between the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the suit property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 33,01,000/-, of which Rs. 6,01,000/- was admittedly paid by the respondent/plaintiff at the time of entering into of the agreement to sell. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that the appellant/defendant could not get the property converted into freehold by 30.11.2007, and therefore time was extended first till 15.02.2008 and then till 29.03.2008 and finally till 30.04.2008. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/defendant then asked for a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- over the agreed sale consideration. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 08.04.2008 to the appellant/defendant to perform the contract, and on failure of the appellant/defendant to do the needful, the subject suit was filed.

3. Appellant/Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. Execution of the agreement to sell is admitted. The extension of time upto 15.02.2008 is admitted but thereafter the extensions are denied pleading that extensions till 29.03.2018 are forged endorsements. It was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff was guilty of breach of contract. The suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.

4. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the defendant no.1 had extended the time for making of balance payment by the plaintiff firstly upto 29.03.2008 and then to 30.04.2008, as alleged in the plaint? OPP

(2) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP.

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.09.2007? OPP

(4) Relief?”

5. Evidence which has been led in the trial court has been referred to in para 7 of the impugned judgment and this para 7 reads as under:-

“7. During trial, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Preetam Kumar Sinha, his brother as PW-1 who tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and additional affidavit as Ex.PW-1/B. He also relied upon documents i.e. plaint as Ex.PW-1/1, site plan as Ex.PW-1/2 (also Ex.P1), original sale agreement Ex.PW-1/3(also Ex.P6), coloured photocopy of the sale agreement as Ex.PW-1/4, perpetual lease deed Ex.PW-1/5 (also Ex.P2), receipt dated 18.11.2007 as Mark A, notice dated 08.04.2008 Ex.PW-1/7 (also Ex.P3), Notice dated 16.04.2008 Ex.PW-1/8(also Ex.P4), reply dated 01.05.2008 as Ex.PW-1/9(also as Ex.P5). Plaintiff examined himself as PW-2 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW-2/A and he relied upon the documents which were relied by PW-1 in his examination. After conclusion of PE, defendant led DE and examined Sh. Shyam Sunder as DW-1 who tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW-1/1.”

6. The trial court has decreed the suit by holding that the respondent/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that there was a breach of contract on behalf of the appellant/defendant.

7.(i) Ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant has strenuously argued two aspects before this Court. Firstly, it is argued that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff/proposed buyer has to prove readiness as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 i.e. financial capacity mus