JUDGMENT : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Appellant is Plaintiff in O.S.No. 135 of 2005 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, R.R District at L.B. Nagar. The parties to this appeal are being referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 1.1. Plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 0-10 guntas in Survey No. 186/A, Ac. 0-08 guntas in Survey No. 187/A, Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No. 190/A, Ac. 0-07 guntas in Survey No. 191/A, Ac.0-09 guntas in Survey No. 192/A situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District (referred to as ‘Suit Schedule Property’). 1.2. It is stated, defendant is owner of the suit schedule property who approached Plaintiff offering to sell the property; total sale consideration agreed between the parties is Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) and the said agreement was reduced into writing vide unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2000. On the date of Agreement, Plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Though repeated requests were made by Plaintiff with Defendant for execution of registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-, defendant refused to execute sale deed by giving one reason or other. Plaintiff waited for considerable time and issued legal notice on 06.06.2005 and prior to issuance of legal notice, a demand was made by Plaintiff on 20.07.2004. Having no other alternative, Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance based on Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2000 marked as Ex. A-1. 2. Defendant filed written statement in the suit denying entering into Agreement of Sale with Plaintiff, so also whole of the sale transaction including receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- The Agreement of Sale relied on by Plaintiff is created and brought into existence only to knock away the Suit Schedule Property and that there is no privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant thereby execution of registered sale deed does not arise. It is also stated, in view of rise in the market value of lands in Kokapet, Narsingi Regions, Plaintiff created the Agreement of Sale and based on the said document, suit for specific performance was filed. The demand made by Plaintiff on 20.07.2004 was also denied by defendant who contends that there is no cause of action for filing suit for specific performance. 2.1. The demand made by Plaintiff on 20.07.2004 was also denied by defendant who contends that there is no cause of action for filing suit for specific performance. 2.1. Defendant denied issuance of legal notice dated 06.06.2005 and further contended that Suit Schedule Property is ancestral property and Defendant alone cannot enter into a contract of sale and other co-parceners have title/share/interest in the schedule property. It is the specific case of defendant that Plaintiff is resident of Narsingi Village and Defendant is resident of Kokapet Village which is near to Narsingi and due to the said acquaintance, Defendant in July 2000, obtained Rs.2,00,000/- towards hand loan and during the said loan transaction, Plaintiff obtained blank signatures on stamp papers towards security purpose. Though Defendant had repaid the said loan amount in 2001 itself, Plaintiff did not return the blank signed papers giving the reason that the same were misplaced and as and when traced, the same would be returned. Plaintiff using the said stamp papers, had created the Agreement of Sale, witnesses to the Agreement of Sale are none other than the henchmen of Plaintiff and all of them have created the Agreement Of Sale and filed the suit. 3. Based on the pleadings, the trial Judge framed the following issues: 1) Whether the suit agreement came into existence under the circumstances mentioned by the Defendant in Para 16 of his written statement? 2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the suit schedule mentioned property as prayed for? 3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.07.2000 with respect of the petition schedule mentioned property? 4)To what relief? 4. On behalf of Plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of Defendant, two witnesses examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Plaintiff himself ws examined as PW-1 and examined A. Ravinder Reddy as PW-2. Defendant was examined as DW-1 and one person H. Ramu was examined as DW-2. 5. The crucial documentary evidence based on which the suit was adjudicated is Ex. A-1 i.e. Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2000, Ex. A-2 dated 10.07.2000 and Ex. A-3 office copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2005. Defendant was examined as DW-1 and one person H. Ramu was examined as DW-2. 5. The crucial documentary evidence based on which the suit was adjudicated is Ex. A-1 i.e. Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2000, Ex. A-2 dated 10.07.2000 and Ex. A-3 office copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2005. The learned II Additional District Judge, RR District at LB Nagar, though had decided Issue No. 1 in favor of Plaintiff, dismissed the suit for specific performance while deciding Issues 3 and 2 as against Plaintiff. Impugning the said judgment dated 20.12.2010, the present Appeal is filed by Plaintiff. 6. Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, learned counsel for respondents. 7. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having considered the pleadings and evidence as well as the findings of the Judgment under challenge, the following issue is framed for consideration: ‘ Whether the trial court is right in rejecting the claim of Plaintiff having admitted that Ex.A1 is proved and more so when Defendant had taken varying stands as against the pleadings and evidence?’ 8. Before considering the merits of the case, it is necessary to take into notice that the trial Court had decided Issue No. 1 in favour of Plaintiff. In Cross Objections No.15132 of 2011, the basic challenge is with regard to the direction " it is a fit case for the plaintiff to have refund of the advance sale consideration covered by Exs. A1 and A2". The findings and observations made in the impugned judgment in Para No. 13 to 29 are not put to challenge in the Cross-Objections. 9. A careful perusal of Ex. A-1 Agreement of Sale proves that stamp paper was bought by Defendant for self- purpose and the signature on the Agreement of Sale of Defendant was not challenged, so is the case with Ex-A-2 receipt. In the cross examination of PW-2 who is one of the attestors of Ex. A1, no answers were elicited by Defendant which are contra to the claim of Plaintiff. In the cross examination of PW-2 who is one of the attestors of Ex. A1, no answers were elicited by Defendant which are contra to the claim of Plaintiff. In turn, there is a clear statement/answer given by PW2, as observed at Para No.17 of the impugned judgment that Plaintiff paid Rs.10,00,000/- to Defendant in his presence and no material was brought forward to show that the evidence of PW-2 is not trustworthy and not to rely upon. Thereby, this Court comes to a conclusion that Exs. A-1 and A-2 are proved with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and it is also very clear by virtue of Ex. A-1 and A-2 there is a sale transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant inter-alia Suit Schedule Property and Plaintiff is having financial capacity to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The defense of Defendant during the cross examination of PW1 of non-compliance with the requirements of income tax returns and filing by Plaintiff is of no support. If any violations of the procedures and compliances under Income Tax Act are committed by Plaintiff, appropriate proceedings will be initiated by the Competent Authorities under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Further, when receipt of Rs. 10,000,00/- is proved under Ex. A2, defendant being the recipient of the said amount is answerable to the Income Tax authorities under the provisions of Income Tax Act, and the subject transaction will not be rendered invalid or void. 10. On this aspect also, Defendant will not succeed in his defense and so also for the reason that Defendant failed to prove that transaction was money dealing/transactions and was not hit by Section 92 of the Evidence Act, Defendant did not produce evidence to prove that privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant is a money transaction but not agreement for sale of the property. Defendant did not challenge and prove that Ex. A2 was not issued by him and in fact, there is no challenge to the said Document. Ex A2 is the contemporaneous evidence to support the case of Plaintiff that Defendant had received Rs. 10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The payment made by Plaintiff is substantial and is sufficient compliance. This aspect was not considered by the trial Court while deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 3, though had taken the said fact into consideration while deciding Issue No.1. 10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The payment made by Plaintiff is substantial and is sufficient compliance. This aspect was not considered by the trial Court while deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 3, though had taken the said fact into consideration while deciding Issue No.1. Further, Defendant had improved his case during the suit proceedings more specifically with regard to lack of financial capacity of Plaintiff to conclude the Agreement. To that effect, there is no pleading. Even otherwise, on the face of the record, balance amount to be paid is meager amount out of the total sale consideration. Once it is proved that Plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/-, the said aspect proves the financial capability of the Plaintiff to enter into an Agreement of sale with the Defendant. As held supra, Exs.A1 and A2 are proved, the onus of proof is on Defendant to prove his case of there being no privity of contract, which Defendant had failed to discharge. 11. Ex. A-3 being the legal notice issued on behalf of Plaintiff reveals that postal address of Defendant is same with that of the address mentioned in the plaint. There is no disparity between the two addresses. The specific assertion made in the legal notice proves about the ready and willingness of the Plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. Though issuance of legal notice under Ex. A-3 is disputed by Defendant, in view of the addresses mentioned in the suit and on Ex. A-3 are one and the same and Ex.A5 being the acknowledgment, which is not put to challenge by the Defendant thereby contra-inference cannot be drawn upon against Plaintiff. In turn, it is legally-presumed that Ex. A3 was served on Defendant who has not given any reply so also no explanation. On this aspect, no evidence was lead by DW-1 so also there is no cross-examination of PW-1. 12. Defendant filed Ex. B-1 - copy of the plaint being O.S. No. 168 of 2005 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, RR Dist., which is in the nature of Partition and was filed by the sisters of Defendant, wherein the subject matter of the present Appeal is also the subject matter. 13. 12. Defendant filed Ex. B-1 - copy of the plaint being O.S. No. 168 of 2005 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, RR Dist., which is in the nature of Partition and was filed by the sisters of Defendant, wherein the subject matter of the present Appeal is also the subject matter. 13. The trial Court, while deciding Issue No. 1 had taken into consideration the categorical statements made in written statement that defendant had availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in 2000 and in that context, Plaintiff had obtained signatures on blank stamp papers. On the said aspect, there was no cross-examination of PW-1. Likewise, Defendant did not suggest or elicit in the cross-examination of PWI about the demands made by Defendant on Plaintiff for return of signed blank stamp papers. As such, the defense taken in the written statement is not supported by the cross examination of PW-1. At this juncture, it is necessary to see that the aforesaid defense of the Defendant is bereft of details and is not supported by any evidence. The conduct of defendant is against to his defense and is hit by the ‘doctrine of estoppel’. 17. As discussed supra, defendant in the chief- examination as DW-1 improves his case that Plaintiff has no financial capacity to pay consideration amount. The said contention of Defendant is contradictory to his own case that he had obtained loan from Plaintiff and he repaid in 2001. On the face of the record, there is no evidence to support the case of Defendant inter-alia demand for refund of blank signed stamp papers and to that effect, no evidence was produced by Defendant. In the absence of the demands for return of the blank signed stamp papers and on appreciation of cross- examination of PW-1 and silence maintained by Defendant at the time when written statement was filed in the suit, the trial Court has rightly decided Issue No. 1 in favor of Plaintiff disbelieving the contention of Defendant that Ex. A-1 is created and fabricated for the purpose of the suit. A-1 is created and fabricated for the purpose of the suit. The trail Court further observed on categorical terms that if actually the story put-forth by Defendant is true, Defendant would have issued legal notice for return of blank signed stamp papers and said inaction has to be viewed in the light of new story introduced in his chief-examination affidavit, that Plaintiff does not have financial capacity to enter into subject sale agreement. Thus, the trial Court committed an error in holding that Plaintiff did prove his readiness / willingness to perform his part of the obligation in offering the balance sale consideration and trial Court should have decreed the suit. In the cross-objections filed by the Defendant, no challenge has been made by him to the observations and findings made by the trail Court while deciding Issue No.1. The trial Court having decided the genuinity and authenticity of Ex. A-1 while deciding Issue No.1 should have decreed the suit for specific performance as sought by the Plaintiff. However, the Trail Court while deciding the Issue No. 3&2 had dismissed the plaint of the Plaintiff, for which this Court is not in agreement with. 18. The Trail Court has categorically observed in Para No.33 of the impugned Judgment that time is not the essence of contract under Ex. A-1; the trial Court came to the wrong appreciation of fact that Plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under Ex. A-1 and the same is conspicuously missing in Ex. A-3. The circumstances revolving around Exs. A-1 and A-2 were overlooked by the trial Court while deciding Issues 3 and 2. Having accepted Exs. A-1 and A-2 as genuine and valid and there is privity of contract, trial Court should not have drawn adverse observation against Plaintiff that Plaintiff has not placed any material to show his financial capacity to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. Plaintiff having paid the major part of the sale consideration had proved his financial strength to complete the sale consideration. It is not the requirement of law that as on the date of entering into the Agreement, the party shall display the availability of complete sale consideration to the seller. Thus, trial Court’s approach in dismissing the suit is erroneous. Plaintiff having paid the major part of the sale consideration had proved his financial strength to complete the sale consideration. It is not the requirement of law that as on the date of entering into the Agreement, the party shall display the availability of complete sale consideration to the seller. Thus, trial Court’s approach in dismissing the suit is erroneous. The observations made in Para 36 of the impugned judgment are contra to the observations and findings given while deciding Issue No. 1. 19. The statement made by DW1 is crucial to the case of Defendant that suit schedule property is joint family property, and he alone is not competent to enter Ex.A1. In the Cross- Examination of DW1, it is elicited that ‘it is true that I am the owner of the suit property. The witness adds. it is my ancestral property. The suit property has fallen to my share. Pass book was also issued to me. The pahanies contain my name as possessor". This statement which is an admission of DWI was overlooked by the trial Court. 20. The conduct of DW1 plays a crucial role in the present lis for the reason that having admitted that he did not possess any documentary evidence that he repaid the loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and that having asserted that Plaintiff promised to return the blank papers and postponed on one pretext or the other, did not give any reason for not taking any steps as against Plaintiff to protect his interest and to safeguard him from any of the purported claim or claims to be made by Plaintiff. Thus, the said contention of DW1 that he had obtained loan and that he had repaid the same and the allegation that Plaintiff had misused the stamp papers etcetera are not believable and accordingly, are rejected by this court. 21. DW1 had admitted his signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 and had also admitted that himself and his younger brother executed an Agreement of sale in favor of one Ramdev on 18.10.2001 in respect of Acs.4.00 of land and that they have received some money from him under the Agreement of sale. Having said so in the cross examination, Defendant had not contended anything in the written statement which was filed subsequent to the date of Ex.A1, ExA2 and 18.10.2001. There is clear suppression of said facts in the written statement. Having said so in the cross examination, Defendant had not contended anything in the written statement which was filed subsequent to the date of Ex.A1, ExA2 and 18.10.2001. There is clear suppression of said facts in the written statement. The evidence of DW2 is of no help to the case of Defendants. On appreciating the oral evidence of DW2, it is clear that his evidence is not trustworthy more so when he had stated that "I do not know the name of his father. I cannot say the time and date on which the Defendant borrowed the hand loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the Plaintiff". 22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Plaintiff had relied upon following Judgments:- 1) Ansar Basha v. Mohamed Abdul,  2007 SCC Online MAD 667 ii) Ram Dass v. Shisha Singh, 2007 SCC On line P&H 693 iii) Padmawati v. Kulwant Rai, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1805 (P&H) (D) iv) Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sadaram Nookayya, AIR 1962 AP 20 v) Svenska Handels Bankan v. M/s Indian Charge Chrome, AIR 1994 SC 626 vi) Hanif Azamii Aliyas Azami v. Shabana Mohsin Ghazi, (2006) 6 SCC 56 23. Learned counsel for defendant had relied upon the following Judgments:- i) Vijay Kumar v. Om Prakash, AIR On line 2018 SC 357 ii) C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy (D), AIR 2020 SC 930 iii) U.N. Krishna Murthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, (2023) 11 SCC 775 iv) Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh , (2023) 3 SCC 714 24. This Court is not taking any different stand from the judgments referred to supra by the respective parties. During the pendency of the present Appeal, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was amended in 2018. After the amendment, relief of Specific Performance is no more a discretionary relief under Section 10 of the said Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 10 is procedural provision and it has retrospective applicability. This aspect was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (C) No. 1565 of 2022 in C.A. No. 5822 of 2022 ( M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy) and Review Petition (C) No. 1839 of 2024 in C.A. No. 5823 of 2022. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "h. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 was amended in 2018, by which the relief of specific performance is no longer a discretionary power. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "h. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 was amended in 2018, by which the relief of specific performance is no longer a discretionary power. Section 10 is a procedural provision. All procedural laws are retrospective. The amended provision applies to all pending proceedings." 25. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case and the facts of the above case are similar to the facts of the instant case. As discussed supra, after the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, Specific Performance is no more a discretionary relief under Section 10 which has retrospective applicability and is applicable to the present Appeal and as this Appeal is continuation of the suit proceedings, relief of specific performance is to be granted to Plaintiff. 26. In the instant case, one of the grounds for defense of the Defendant is that Plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration as mentioned in Ex. A1 and had issued legal notice under Ex A3 just before expiry of limitation. Ex.A1 does not stipulate or make any mention of the consequences in the event of not making the balance payment on the given date. Thus, it cannot be viewed that time is the essence of the contract and the suit filed by Plaintiff is well within limitation. 27. From the above discussion, this Court comes to a conclusion that there is privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant under Ex.A1 and payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- is proved vide Ex. A2 and Plaintiff had discharged his onus of demanding Defendant to conclude the sale-transaction on receiving balance sale consideration under Ex. A2, and conduct of Defendant in changing his defense in written statement and during trial and Defendant is guilty of suppression of fact of his entering into another agreement of sale with one Mr. Ramdev, wherein the schedule property is also subject matter of Agreement and there is also suppression of fact of filing O.S.No.120 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, seeking Specific Performance of Agreement of sale dated 15.06.2001, which was filed much prior to the present suit and Defendant have also not brought to the Court’s notice with regard to the result of the said suit, so also the suit being O.S.No. 168 of 2005. All these aspects reflect on the conduct of Defendant. In view of Plaintiff proving the Agreement of sale - Ex. A1 and receipt of Money vide Ex.A2 and demonstration of his readiness / willingness to pay balance sale consideration and Defendant though had received the said notice under acknowledgment - Ex A5, did not raise any objection to the same, this Court is of the opinion that Appeal deserves to be allowed. 28. The Appeal is accordingly, allowed. Appellant - Plaintiff is directed to pay the balance sale consideration within two weeks from today to Defendant, who, on receipt of the said amount, shall execute registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of Plaintiff. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. 29. Cross Objections filed by defendant are dismissed. 30. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.