V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance have come up with the above regular appeal.

2. Heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Mr. T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

3. The appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur praying for a decree of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.10.2009. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs was that the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property under the said agreement of sale for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,18,00,000/-; that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid towards part of the sale consideration; that time was not the essence of the agreement; that the defendant was obliged under the agreement to pay the arrears of municipal taxes and the electricity charges, to obtain Encumbrance Certificate and also to prepare lease agreements from the existing tenants in favour of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract; that on 13.04.2010, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to perform their part of the contract; that the Managing director of the defendant requested for a further period of two months and made an endorsement on the agreement of sale extending the time till 13.06.2010; that since the defendant kept on postponing the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 02.01.2011 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed on 07.03.2011; that on that day the plaintiffs were present at the office of the Sub-Registrar, but the Managing Director of the defendant did not turn up; that the defendant issued a reply dated 17.02.2011 containing false allegations and claiming that the agreement got cancelled and the advance money forfeited; that the Directors of the defendant as well as their family members had earlier executed an agreement on 04.10.2009, but the same got terminated; that the plaintiffs reserved their right to recover the money paid under the earlier agreement; and that therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

4. The appellants/plaintiffs also made an alternative prayer for the refund of the advance money of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a.

5. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that though an agreement of sale was executed on 14.10.2009, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was not paid either as advance or as part of the sale consideration; that the said amount was stated in clear terms to be liable to be forfeited, if the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the obligations within six months; that time was the essence of the contract; that in these days of galloping prices and demand for immovable properties, nobody can think that time is not the essence of the contract; that Hindupur is a flourishing and expanding town in every field; that several industries are developing in and around upto a distance of more than 10 K.Ms; that prices of buildings and other immovable properties are increasing by leaps and bounds and hence no seller would agree to treat the time mentioned in the agreement as a formal condition; that the defendant is a business concern, which wanted money for purchasing a property at Bangalore and hence opted to sell the plaint schedule property; that the parties fixed six months as the time after coming to a definite understanding; that the period of six months mentioned in the agreement was never meant to be a formal clause; that on account of the default committed by the plaintiffs, the defendants lost the chance of purchasing a property at Bangalore and suffered heavy loss; that since Bangalore has attained the status of an international city, purchasing a property at Bangalore will be an all time permanent