The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 11.07.2013 for agricultural land in Khammam District, Telangana, against the defendant (appellant) and another joint owner, alleging that despite paying advance consideration and remaining ready to pay the balance, the defendants failed to execute the registered sale deed. The trial court (Principal District Judge, Khammam) decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the agreement's execution was proved through the defendant's own admissions, time was not the essence of the contract, and the plaintiffs had demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform. The appellant challenged this decree before the Telangana High Court under Section 96 CPC, raising grounds including non-examination of attesting witnesses, time being the essence of the contract, and alleged collusion between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. The High Court, upon consideration of the submissions and record, rejected the appellant's contention that the agreement was not proved due to non-examination of attesting witnesses, holding that the defendant's own admissions in cross-examination as D.W.1 — acknowledging her signature and receipt of advance consideration — sufficiently established execution of the agreement.