The sole defendant in O.S.No.22 of 1993, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 14.8.1983. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal preferred by the appellant herein, in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, was dismissed.

2. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, with the following averments. The appellant offered to sell a plot of 449 sq.yards in Ward No.6, Javarupet of Machilipatnam Municipality, at the rate of Rs.40/- per square yard. A sum of Rs.3,900/- was paid as advance, on the date of agreement itself. The entire consideration was to be paid within one month from the date of agreement, and the appellant in turn was under obligation, to get the plot measured and to execute a sale deed. The appellant was not ready to get the land measured, but received a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 10.10.1983, Rs.3,000/- on 24.4.1984 and a similar sum on 6.6.1984. A further sum of Rs.4,100/- was paid on 25.9.1987. All the payments were endorsed on the agreement of sale. The respondent got issued a notice, dated 29.6.1992, to the appellant, through her counsel, and that the latter refused to receive the same. Expressing her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, she prayed for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, or in the alternative, for a decree for a sum of Rs.16,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum, and for a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards damages, with the same rate of

interest.

3. The appellant filed written statement. He admitted the execution of agreement of sale, and receipt of various amounts up to 25.9.1987, as pleaded by the respondent. He denied the allegation of his refusal to receive the notice. A specific plea was raised that the suit was barred by limitation. Alleging that the time was essence of the contract, the appellant pleaded that the respondent has no enforceable right against him. He also pleaded that on account of the delay in payment of the balance of consideration by the respondent, he has suffered great hardship.

4. Through its judgment, dated 18.4.1996, the trial court decreed the suit for specific performance. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 25.2.2003.

5. Sri P. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit was clearly barred by limitation, and both the courts erred in holding otherwise. He submits that the very fact that small amounts were paid at intervals spread over years, discloses that the respondent was not ready with the balance of consideration. Learned counsel points out that due to lapse of several years, from the date of agreement, the equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted in favour of the respondent.

6. Sri P.Radakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant went on dodging the execution of sale deed, ever since the lapse of one month, from the date of agreement, and that the actual refusal came to be inferred only with the non-receipt of notice, dated 29.6.1992. He submits that the suit was filed within few months, from the date of return of the notice. As regards the passage of time, ever since the date of agreement, learned counsel submits that it is the respondent who had suffered prejudice, since that he parted with almost the entire consideration.

7. Both the learned counsel relied upon several judgments in support of their contentions.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the contract of sale dated 14.8.1983 is true,valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the contract of sale is barred by limitation?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

9. The respondent deposed as PW-1. Ex.A-1 is the agreement of sale,