As per case facts, defendant Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur agreed to sell property to Dilbagh Singh via a Contract of Sale dated 01.07.1999, with Dilbagh Singh's father, Prithi Singh, signing and ... paying earnest money. The defendant claimed the agreement was cancelled by a writing dated 17.11.1999, and Prithi Singh received the earnest money back. Dilbagh Singh died, and his legal heirs (plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance. The lower courts decreed the suit, finding Prithi Singh lacked authority to cancel and plaintiffs were ready and willing. The defendant appealed to the High Court against these concurrent judgments. The question arose whether Prithi Singh had the authority to cancel the Agreement to Sell without Dilbagh Singh's explicit authorization, whether the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and if the suit was within limitation. Finally, the High Court found merit in the defendant's arguments, noting that if Prithi Singh executed the agreement without a Power of Attorney, he also didn't need one to cancel it, implying the agreement might be invalid. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness due to reliance on photocopies without proper evidence and found the suit to be time-barred. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments.