In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the court will not grant the relief if the plaintiff has committed a breach of contract or has been guilty of laches. However, the court may grant the relief subject to conditions to ensure that justice is done to both parties.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal against the Judgment and decree of the additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for S. P. E. Cases, City Civil court, Hyderabad dated 30-12-1981 in O. S. No. 399 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE first and second defendants are the wives of one Siddirami reddi. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of Siddirami Reddy. Dsfendants 1 and 2 owned Plot No. 73, measuring an extent of 3572 square yards in road No. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. They constructed a house in an extent of 1650 square yards on the Northern side. The remaining land on the southern side was kept for themselves. All the four defendants and ths plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 30-7-1979 Ex A-1 in respect ot 1650 square yards together with the building thereon. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as earnest money by a cheque. The total consideration for the suit property was Rs. 5 lakhs. On of the principal conditions of the sale agretment was that the sale has to be completed within two months from the date of agreement and the defendants have to obtain the permission under the Urban Land Ceilings Act, non-encumbrance certificate and the Income-tax clearance certificate within that time. The defendants obtained the non-encumbrance certificate Ex. B 3 on 5-9-1979 and the permission from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities on 21-9-1979. But the income-tax clearance certificate was obtained by them on 18-10-1979. By this time, the stipulated period of two months was over. However, it does not make any difference as it is not the case of either party that time is the essence of the contract.

( 3 ) ON 4-12-1979 the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed and that they were ready with the balance sale consideration. Ex. A-4 is the letter. On 11-12-1979 the plaintiff issued a citation in Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle inviting objections from interested parties in respect of the sale transaction. On 20-10-1979 the defendants issued a notice cancelling the suit contract stating that the plaintiff had not fulfilled her part of the contract by getting the sale deed executed within 2 months as stipulated in the agreement, that they obtained all the necessary permissions by 18-10-1979, within the stipulated time of two months from the date of agreement, that though the agreement was dated 31-7-1979 the actual date on which the agreement was written is 21-8-1979 that the plaintiff had also committed breach of the contract by not providing a passage in the suit site to enable the defendants to reach their land on the Southern portion, that the plaintiff in the first instance stated that she would provide a passage on the Western side instead of on the Eastein side, that on the second occasion, she refused to provide any passage either on the eastern side or on the Western side. The defendants have also stated that by the non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff by paying the sale consideration and getting the sale deed executed within the stipulated time their contract with one Sangameswara Reddi for purchase of his agricultural lands had failed.

( 4 ) TO this notice, the plaintiff gave a reply Ex. A-6 on 30-12-1979. She denied that there was no agreement to provide a passage through the suit land either on the Eastern side or on the Western side, that the entire story is false and set up with a view to resile from the contract, that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the alleged agreement of the defendants with sangameswara Feddy in respect of some agricultural lands, that if there was any such agreement, it is an independent transaction and has no bearing the suit contract. The plaintiff reiterated that she is willing and reajy to perform their part of the contract and it was the defendants that were trying to back out from the agreement. The very next day, on i. e. 31-12-1979 the plaintiff tiled the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale Ex. A-1 reiteratin