T. CH. SURYA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16-2-1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in CCCA No. 115 of 1987 and CCCA No. 106 of 1985. Those appeals inturn have been filed against the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS No. 16/1983 and 17/83 dated 29-6-1985.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein Sri C. Panduranga Rao, filed the suit OS No. 17 of 83 for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale against Sri V. Syamala Rao and T. Chandra Mouli the respondents herein. It is better to refer the respondents by names to avoid any confusion. Sri T. Chandra Mouli filed the second suit OS No. 16 of 83 for eviction and damages for use and occupation against the appellant. The said Syamala Rao, the original owner of the suit house, is the 1st defendant in OS No. 17 of 83 and the 2nd defendant in OS No. 16 of 83 and 1st and 2nd respondent respectively in the corresponding Appeals. The appellant filed the suit OS No. 17/83 for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 22-1-1977 executed by the said V. Syamala Rao in his favour on the premise that the said Syamala Rao executed the suit agreement of sale dated 22-1-1977 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000. 00 and received an amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 as advance while agreeing to receive the balance sale consideration at the time of registration of the sale-deed, and that subsequently the appellant paid some amounts in piecemeal, all put together an amount of Rs. 43,000. 00and that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration. Sri T. Chandramouli filed the suit OS No. 16/83 on the premise that he purchased the suit property which is a house property from Sri C. Syamala Rao under a registered sale-deed dated 31-7-1979 and that the appellant herein was the tenant attorned to him and committed default in paying the rents. Both the suits had been tried together and evidence was recorded in OS No. 17/83. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit OS No. 16/83 of the appellant and decreed the suit OS No. 17/83. While dismissing the suit it was found by the trial Court that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and his contention that he paid an amount of Rs. 43,000. 00 in all is not proved except to the extent of the payment of Rs. 5,000. 00 as advance. In the other suit, he found that Sri T. Chandra Mouli who is the plaintiff therein was the owner of the suit premises and the appellant committed default in payment of rents.

( 3 ) IN the appeals the learned single Judge of this Court on an overall appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary adduced in the suit has come to the conclusion that the appellant was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and thus concurred with the finding of the lower Court. However, on the issue of the payment of various amounts, the learned single Judge accepted the payment of Rs. 8,000. 00 subsequently while disbelieving the version of the appellant with regard to the payment of other amounts, and thus, modified the judgment of the trial Court by granting a decree for the refund of an amount of Rs. 13,000. 00 while dismissing the suit for the relief of specific performance of the contract. The decree in other suit OS 16/83 was confirmed on the ground that the 2nd respondent was the owner of the house under the sale-deed while disbelieving the tenancy. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeals have been sought to be filed as aforesaid.

( 4 ) NOW, in these appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the time is not the essence of the contract, and that therefore, the appellate Court went wrong in not having considered the same. It is his other contention that the appellant paid in all Rs. 43,000. 00 and merely because of time log of two years and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document