ORDER 1. This appeal arises out of a suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale of Plot No. 15 admeasuring 555 square yards in an urban area in Sikanderabad. The suit was based on an alleged oral agreement entered into on 11-8-1975 by Defendant 1 who is successor-in-title of the original owner and is the appellant before us. The case of the respondent plaintiff was that pursuant to the oral agreement of sale, a sum of Rs 2000 was paid by cheque followed by Rs 3000 in cash and thereafter Rs 15,000 by a post-dated cheque. The negotiations for sale took place through Defendant 2 who was alleged to be the agent and nephew of Defendant 1. A receipt in the total sum of Rs 20,000 was issued by Defendant 2 for and on behalf of Defendant 1. Before filing this suit for specific performance, the plaintiff served a legal notice on 3-8-1976 to both the defendants. Defendant 2 alone gave a reply repudiating the contract. 2. The trial court as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court in appeal recorded a concurrent finding that an oral agreement did take place between Defendant 2 on behalf of Defendant I and the plaintiff and aforementioned part consideration for sale was paid. A decree for specific performance for executing the sale of the land was granted. 3. The defendants preferred letters patent appeal to the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19-7-1999 of the Division Bench. Mr P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us to the relevant part of the pleadings and evidence. He made efforts to persuade us to hold that Defendant 2 had no right as an agent of Defendant 1 to agree for the sale of plot in question. It is contended that the plaintiff led no evidence to prove that Defendant 1 had appointed Defendant 2 as his power of attorney with authority to negotiate and agree for sale as the agent of the former. 4. We have also heard Mr P. Niroop Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. 5. From the judgment of the trial court, we find that no specific issue was raised on the question of existence of any alleged agency between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2. 6. 4. We have also heard Mr P. Niroop Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. 5. From the judgment of the trial court, we find that no specific issue was raised on the question of existence of any alleged agency between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2. 6. Not only that, before the trial court no specific issue was raised on the existence and validity of the agreement for appointment of Defendant 2 as an agent of Defendant 1; Defendant 1 kept herself away from the witness box and sent no reply to the legal notice to deny that she had not authorised her own nephew (Defendant 2) to act as her agent and negotiate for sale. The plaintiff also examined other witnesses to prove that there were earlier similar transactions of sale in Ishaq Colony in which Defendant 2 acted as an agent on behalf of Defendant 1. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by all courts that there was an oral agreement of sale evidenced by payment of part of the price by cash and cheque evidenced by a formal issuance of receipt. There is also a concurrent finding recorded that Defendant 2 was acting as an agent of Defendant 1. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, we decline to reappreciate the evidence and take a contrary view. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that as they have raised construction on the property in dispute, which they are occupying for their residence, they should be granted six months time to vacate and execute the sale deed. Prayer made is allowed. The appeal is dismissed but on the condition of the appellants filing a written undertaking in this Court within three weeks that they will vacate the property on expiry of six months from the date of this order and deliver up actual physical possession to the respondent decree-holder within the said period and execute the sale deed in terms of the decree passed by the courts below. 9. No order as to costs.