S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this suit the plaintiff seeks decree for specific performance of a contract for purchase of Flat No. 22, Zakir Bagh, New Delhi, (hereafter called "the suit property").

2. The facts, to the extent they are undisputed by the parties in their pleadings, are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement on 21.03.2006 for purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs. The Agreement to sell is embodied in a written document marked as Ex. P-1. The defendant is concededly the owner of the suit property. The relevant terms of the agreement marked as Ex. P-1 are extracted below:

"...WHEREAS with the mutual discussion between the parties to this very deed the First Party has agreed to sell out the said property bearing No. 22, 6th floor, Zakir Bagh, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 75 lacs (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only) to the Second Party.

WHEREAS the Second Party has agreed to the said consideration amount and Rs. 5 lakhs as earnest money and acknowledge t he receipt by the first party and Rs. 40 lacs (Rupees Forty Lacs) will be paid by the Second Party at the destination by 15th May, 2006 and place of the choice of the first party and balance of Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) will be paid uptill 15.5.2006 in cash at the home of second party and the balance of Rs. 15 lacs at the time of execution of documents of alienation (in shape of draft).

That the whole deal will be completed within three months from the execution of this deed of agreement or earnest money and the possession of property in sale will deliver after one month of final payment.

That the detailed agreement to sell and other relevant documents will be executed at the later stage when the second intalment of Rs. 40 lacs (Rupees Forty lacs only) will be paid by the second party to the First Party as per the choice of the First Party.

That in case of default on the part of first party then the second party will be entitled to get the double of the paid amount and in the same fashion in case of fault the part of second party then first party will be en titled to forfeit the paid amount in respect of schedule of payment and delivery of possession.

WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have signed this Agreement of Sell on the date, month and year first above mentioned."

2. The plaintiff used to live in Zambia; he had entered into the agreement to purchase the suit property with the defendant. It is submitted that this was with the intention to settle down in that property. There is no dispute that Rs. 35 lakhs had been paid to the defendant on or before 14.05.2006. The plaintiff had alleged in the suit that a bank draft for Rs. 9 lakhs dated 16.05.2006 was received by the defendant; the latter however, denies it. The plaintiff had also alleged having paid Rs. 23 lakhs in cash on 14.05.2006 and having paid Rs. 10 lakhs - out of that amount- to the plaintiff's attorney. This too has been denied.

3. It is alleged that the plaintiff assured and agreed that the entire transaction would be completed within 3 months as stipulated. The plaintiff alleges that he paid a total amount of Rs. 44 lakhs. The plaintiff, however, contends that according to an oral understanding the defendant expressed no objection in executing the documents of title in favour of the plaintiff's daughter on the basis that balance consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs, was to be towards fittings and fixtures. The plaintiff relies upon stamp paper purchased in that regard for Rs. 2,28,000/- on 10.05.2006. The said stamp paper has been produced, exhibited and marked as Ex.PW-1/9. It is also alleged that plaintiff's daughter Ms. Shumhsa Tahseen had come down to Delhi from Dubai on 11.05.2006 to complete the transaction on account of the defendant's assurance and even visited the office of the Sub-Registrar the next day, i.e. 12.05.2006. It is, however, submitted that since the defendant was not present she executed a special power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's neph