( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. The first plaintiff late Kowidi Venkata Ananda Raja Gopala Krishna Murthy entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of Ac. 5-88 cents of land in S. No. 751 of Konthamuru, hamlet of Komaluru of Rajahmundry taluk, East Godavari district with the defendants 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 53,000. 00 per acre on 11-12-1982. The said plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 as advance on that date. He agreed to pay Rs. 80,000. 00 on or before 31-1-1983, Rs. 50,000. 00 before 30-4-1983 and the balance on or before 15-5-1983. It is also agreed that in case the above conditions are fulfilled by the said plaintiff, the possession of property would be delivered on 30-3-1983.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, it is the case of the first plaintiff that he has been althrough ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants were never ready to comply with the terms of the contract. It is further stated in the plaint that apart from Rs. 20,000. 00 paid on 11-12-1982 to the defendants a further sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 was paid on 16-1-1983 for discharge of the bank debt due by the defendants. No endorsement of part payment for this amount was made by the defendants on the agreement but they promised that they would make the endorsement on the agreement when the first plaintiff pays a further sum of Rs. 50,000. 00by the end of January 1983 to make up a sum of Rs. 80,000. 00 as agreed. Taking advantage of the fact that there is no endorsement for the said sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 the defendants have conveniently denied the receipt of the said amount but the telegraphic notice issued by the first defendant amply proves the said payment. The defendants did not cooperate in execution of the sale deed or deeds. Hence in pursuance of the said agreement the first plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

( 3 ) THE first defendant who is the father of the second defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement the execution of the agreement dated 11-12-1982 and the terms thereunder have been admitted. But the alleged payment of Rs. 30,000. 00 on 16-1-1983 is denied. It is further asserted that the first plaintiff was never ready with balance of consideration and therefore the defendants have repudiated the contract and terminated it as the first plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract inspite of notice of demand by the defendants.

( 4 ) PENDING the suit the first plaintiff died and his mother, widow, his son and daughter are added as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

( 5 ) IN the lower Court the fifth plaintiff was examined as PW1 besides examining three more witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs. Exs. A-l to A-16 were also marked. The first defendant was examined As DW ] on behalf of the defendants and Exs. B-l to B-7 were marked.

( 6 ) THE lower Court on a consideration of the entire material on record dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submits that it is the defendants that committed default of the terms of the contract and the first plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore the decree and judgment of the lower Court have to be set aside.

( 8 ) THE execution of the suit agreement Ex. A-1 dated 11-12-1982 is admitted by the defendants. There is also no dispute about the terms of the said agreement. Accordingly, the first plaintiff agreed to pay the consideration at the rate of Rs. 53,000. 00 per acre for the demised property which is an extent of Ac. 5-88. It is also admitted that the first plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 at the time of execution of the agreement, to the defendants. According to the terms of the agreement he had to pay a further sum of Rs. 80,000. 00 by 31-1-1983. The first plaintiff claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00by 16-1-1983 which is disputed by the defendants.

( 9 ) NOW the question is whether the first plaintiff was ready and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document