Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, BISHAN NARAIN, C.B.AGARWAL, N.N.KESHVANI, URMILA KAPUR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by special leave regarding a contract for the sale of a plot, reversing the High Court's decision that denied specific performance.
• On July 18, 1955, the appellants entered into an agreement with the respondents to purchase Plot No. 8 (1500 Sq. Yds) in Jangpura B, New Delhi, for Rs. 22,500/-, with Rs. 7,500/- paid as earnest money (!) (!) .
• The original contract required the balance of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid within one month of the execution of the sale deed by the respondents (!) .
• The plot was subject to a lease from the Rehabilitation Ministry, requiring the respondents to obtain government sanction before transferring the property (!) (!) .
• On August 11, 1955, the respondents sent a letter acknowledging that the sale deed could not be executed without the Ministry's sanction and agreed to execute it within a week of receiving such sanction (!) .
• The respondents later attempted to cancel the agreement in June 1956, claiming uncertainty regarding the sanction, but eventually obtained the sanction on November 20, 1956 (!) (!) .
• The appellants had consistently sought to complete the transaction, making inquiries about the sanction and publishing advertisements declaring the existence of the agreement (!) (!) .
• The trial court and High Court had held that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform the contract, partly due to a lack of clear funds and the delay in obtaining sanction (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Supreme Court rejected the finding that the appellants were not ready and willing, noting that the relevant period for fund availability began after the sanction was obtained in November 1956, and the appellants had sufficient means (!) (!) .
• The High Court had denied specific performance partly because the appellants had executed the trial court's decree for the refund of earnest money during the appeal (!) (!) .
• The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be said to have "approbated and reprobated" because their conduct (seeking an injunction and pressing the appeal) clearly showed they did not accept the trial court's judgment as correct (!) (!) .
• The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were bound by their own letter of August 11, 1955, to wait for the Ministry's sanction before demanding the balance payment (!) .
• The appeal was allowed, and the proper form of the decree was determined to be that indicated in Lala Durge Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand (!) .