ORDER 1. Our order dated 2-1-2025 reads thus:- "We heard this matter for quite sometime. We take notice of the fact that the original plaintiff is here before this Court with the present petition. He instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale of the year 1992. The total sale consideration fixed in the agreement of sale is Rs.30,000/-. It is not in dispute that Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement towards earnest money. 3. The suit came to be allowed. The trial court passed a decree for specific performance. The defendant(s) went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court reversed the judgment and set aside the decree. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner(original plaintiff) is here before this Court with the present petition. 5. We take notice of the observations made by the High Court in para 11 of its impugned order. The para 11 reads thus:- "11. The defendant in his written statement has admitted as true that he had entered into an Agreement of Sale with the 23.04.1992, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property, which is a residential house more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.30,000/-. He has also not denied or disputed, having received Rs.10,000/-from the plaintiff. He has also not specifically denied or disputed that by virtue of the said Agreement of Sale, he has put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property as a part, performance of the said agreement. Thus, the trial Court rightly did not frame a specific issue regarding the existence of an Agreement of Sale dated 23.04.1992 with respect to suit schedule property between the parties. However, contrary to his pleading the defendant as DW-1 in his evidence has taken a contention that though he had executed an agreement dated 23.04.1992, but, he had put has signatures on a plain paper. He also took a defence in the cross-examination of PW-2 that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property as a tenant of the said premises, but, not by virtue of Ex.P-3. He also took a defence in the cross-examination of PW-2 that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property as a tenant of the said premises, but, not by virtue of Ex.P-3. Since plaintiff's witness has specifically denied the said suggestion, the burden of proving the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit premises as a tenant of the said premises was upon the defendant, which he could not discharge in the trial. Thus, the fact remains that the defendant as an allottee of a residential house, which was the suit schedule property, from BDA, had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff on 23.04.1992, by entering into an agreement as per Ex.P-3 even though the defendant, as a vendor, himself had not become the absolute owner of the said property and was a mere allottee of the said residential property by BDA. It is also established that, in the said process, the defendant as a vendor had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as an advance amount towards sale consideration." 6. The High Court seems to have been influenced by the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner(s) herein was time barred and therefore he is not entitled to a decree of specific performance. 7. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner herein is in possession of the suit property i.e. the house past almost 29 years. Its a small house admeasuring 125 square feet. Even if we declines specific performance, the petitioner would be entitled to remain in possession of the property with the aid of Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that we should enhance the amount towards sale consideration at least to Rs.5 lakh. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the parties shall consider what has fallen from this Court and put an end to this litigation. 10. List the matter on 10-01-2025 top of the Board." 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the original plaintiffs submitted that he has brought a Demand Draft of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of 'Lakshmi Nagendra' drawn on ICICI Bank, Bangalore, Hosur Road Branch. 3. The demand draft is handed over to Ms. Today, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the original plaintiffs submitted that he has brought a Demand Draft of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of 'Lakshmi Nagendra' drawn on ICICI Bank, Bangalore, Hosur Road Branch. 3. The demand draft is handed over to Ms. Kritika, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original defendants). 4. Xerox copy of the demand draft shall be kept with the records of this case. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are now directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of four weeks from today. 6. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 8. In case of any further difficulty, it shall be open for the parties to come back before us.