LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THE legal representatives of the defendant in the suit are the appellants against a reversing judgment decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract brought by the plaintiff-respondents on the basis of an agreement of sale Ex. A-1 executed on 28-1-1974. The admitted case of the parties is that under the document Rs. 20,000/- was received as earnest money out of the total consideration of Rs. 90,000/- with the condition that the sale deed shall be executed within three months and vacant possession of the suit house shall be handed over at the time of registration and with the further condition that if the plaintiff-respondents fail to pay the balance of consideration within time, the earnest money shall stand forfeited and the contract stands cancelled. The plaintiffs alleged that they were ever ready and willing to pay and perform their part of the contract and, as a matter of fact, they paid, as required by the defendant Rs. 2,700/- on 1-2-1974 and thereafter Rs. 10,000/- on 3-6-1974, but the defendant was not coming forward to execute the sale deed and instead time was extended from time to time on his behalf and ultimately since the sale deed was not executed, the suit was filed on 24th October, 1975. The suit was contested with the written statement filed contending the plaintiffs not having remained ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration money and time being the essence of the contract, non-compliance within the stipulated time, to have frustrated the contract. For such reason, the defendant had issued notice Ex. A-11 on 29-8-1974 cancelling the contract. Both the learned trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge in appeal concurrently found the plaintiff respondents to have been always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The learned trial Court had also found that though time was the essence of the contract between the parties, yet by their subsequent conduct, they had extended the time for which the contract was not frustrated. The learned Single Judge, while taking the view that time was not the essence of the contract, in a sense, concurred with the finding of the trial Court in holding that as the contract stood extended from the time to time, time could not have been the essence of the contract. The trial Court, while finding as such, had dismissed the suit taking the view that the plaintiff-respondents were disentitled to the decree having insisted upon a new condition of getting vacant possession of the house before their getting ready to perform their part of the contract, but directed as the plaintiffs had paid rs. 32,700/- and the defendant had made the plaintiffs pay Rs. 2,700/- to the broker, refund of Rs. 32,700/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of the realisation. The learned Single Judge reversed the decree holding that the plaintiff-respondents had not introduced any new condition and were entitled to the decree for specific performance but because of their insistence that the property should be kept vacant three days prior to the date of registration they had caused delay in performance of the contract for which, in equity, they should pay the balance of consideration with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

( 2 ) MR. Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has urged, in assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, firstly that there is no evidence worth the name of the respondents having been ready with the balance of consideration and that secondly time, in fact, was the essence of the contract which, having not been adhered to, the contract is not available to be specifically enforced.

( 3 ) BOTH the submissions are directed against the findings reached on questions of fact on analysis of evidence. The findings are concurrent by both the forums. Even so, since the question has been urged with great tenacity, we would briefly enter into the area

Click Here to Read the rest of this document