( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellant filed O. S. No. 565 of 1972 in the Court of the Second Additional Child Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of an agreement of re-conveyance dated 5-7-1967. The plaintiff sought a decree directing defendants 1 to 3 to execute a registered sale-deed after receiving a sum of Rs. 13,000. 00 from the plaintiff. On 28-3-1973 a memorandum of compromise signed by the parties and their counsel was filed and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise decree with which we are concerned was as follows:---"that in cases the plaintiff pays to the defendants 1 and 2 a sum of Rs. 13,000. 00 on or before 15-4-1973, the defendants 1 and 2 shall execute the sale-deed conveying house no. 8-3-943/1 to 4 situated at Ameerpet Cross Roads, Hyderabad in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee Manieni Mudukrishna. The costs of conveyance by way of execution of the sale-deed shall be borne by the plaintiff alone. "the very next day, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 242 of 1973 to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that her signature to the memorandum of compromise was obtained by fraud. The plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 243 of 1973 requesting the Court to proceed with the trial of the suit. Both the petitions were opposed by the defendants. While the petitions were pending, the date fixed for payment of Rs. 13,000. 00 by the plaintiff did not seek any extension of time. On 24-1-1974 the plaintiff filed another petition I. A. No. 58 of 1974 requesting the Court to proceed with the I. A. No. 123 of 1974 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw I. A. No. 242 of 1973 unconditionally. On 6-2-1974 I. A. Nos. 242 of 1973, 243 of 1973 and 58 of 1974 was allowed. On 7-2-1974 the plaintiff deposited the entire amount which she was required to deposit under the terms of the compromise decree and on 5-4-1974 he filed E. P. No. 26 of 1974 seeking to execute the compromise decree. No. explanation was given in the execution petition for not depositing the amount before 15-4-1973 as required by the compromise decree. Nor was any application filed or any prayer made in the execution petition to extend the time for payment of the amount. The execution petition was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the payment was made long after the time stipulated for payment of the amount in the compromise decree in accordance with the terms of the memorandum of compromise. It was also pleaded the executing court would have no jurisdiction to go behind the terms of the decree. The learned second additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court dismissed the execution petition. The order of the learned judge was confirmed by a learned single Judge of this court in c. M. A. No. 456 of 1975. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) THERE appear to be three formidable obstacles in the way of the plaintiffs success in this appeal (1) the decree was one for re-conveyance of property. In all agreements for re-conveyance of property time has always been considered to be of the essence of the agreement on the ground that an option to repurchase property was in the nature of a concession or privilege subject to strict fulfilment of prescribed conditions. Vide Samarapuri Chettiar v. Sudarshanna Chariar ILR 42 Mad 802 : (AIR 1919 Mad 544) Balasundara Mudaliar v. Muthu Venkatachala AIR 1954 Mad 799 Shanmugham Pillai v. Annalakshmi Ammal AIR 1950 FC 38, ?simrathmul v. Nanjalingaiah AIR 1963 SC 1182, Caltex India Ltd. v. Bhagavan Devi AIR 1969 Sc 405 and Managlam Pillai v. C. S. A. Udayar AIR 1976 Mad 360. Since the decree in the present case was one for re-conveyance of property, time was of the essence. the plaintiff not having deposited the amount in time the Court had not jurisdiction to extend the time and permit execution of the decree (2 ). The decree was based on an agreement between the parties and, therefore, the decree could not be changed except by the agreement of the parties. The Court was, therefor