( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. No. 21 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge, Nuzivedu preferred in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit is filed for specific performance of contract of sale dated 21. 6. 1970 or in the alternative for recovery of damages of Rs. 4,08,000/- from the defendants. According to the appellants/plaintiffs the defendants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule land and they agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the wife of the 3rd plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated 21. 6. 1970. The plaint averments are as follows: under the agreement dated 21. 6. 1970 the defendants agreed to sell the said land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 28,560/- at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per acre and on the date of the agreement itself the defendants received a sum of rs. 2,500/- as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 26. 060/- shall be paid on or before 2. 8. 1970, failing which the amount paid as advance shall be forfeited. Thereafter, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- on 25. 11. 1970. The defendants having acknowledged the same by way of an endorsement agreed that the balance of sale consideration shall be paid and the registered sale deed shall be obtained before the end of december, 1970. Subsequently, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 20. 1. 1971. The defendants accepted the said amount though the same was paid beyond the time fixed and they have also delivered the possession of the suit schedule land to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that they have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they have also leased out the same to one S. Venkateswara Rao on 26. 4. 1972, who has been paying the rent of Rs. 1,000/- per year to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that during the period from 14. 1. 1971 to 14. 12. 1972 the plaintiffs and the defendants had a running account and as per the said account a sum of rs. 5,490. 70 Ps is due from the defendants which has to be adjusted towards the sale consideration as agreed between the parties. Thus, according to the plaintiffs the balance payable to the defendants towards the sale consideration is only Rs. 6,560. 30 Ps which was deposited in the Office of Revenue Divisional officer, Nuzvid as per the interim orders in W. P. No. 5411 of 1985. Though the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the defendants did not register the sale deed. When the plaintiffs issued notice dated 21. 9. 1987, the defendants issued reply dated 6. 10. 1987 refusing specific performance. Therefore they are constrained to file the suit seeking the reliefs stated supra.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that the 3rd purchaser under the agreement Smt. D. Lakshmidevamma died even prior to institution of the suit. The 3rd plaintiff is her only legal heir. However, the 3d plaintiff also died pending the suit and the plaintiffs 7 and 8 were brought on record. That apart, the 2nd plaintiff died on 18. 11. 1989 pending the suit and consequently plaintiffs 9 to 17 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Similarly, on the death of the 1st plaintiff the plaintiffs 4 to 6 are added to the suit being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants. They filed written statement denying the plea of the plaintiffs that the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to them. It is also contended that the parties always intended that time is the essence of the contract and as per the terms of the contract the balance of sale consideration should be paid on or before 2. 8. 1970, which could not be complied with by the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to raise the plea of part performance of the contract and that the suit is barred by limitation. T