IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Plaintiff consistently demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill his contractual obligations, while the Defendants evaded their responsibilities. The court exercised its discretion to grant relief of specific performance of the agreement, considering the conduct of the parties and other material placed before the Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the Appellants/Defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 28/3/2011 in O.S.No.43 of 2007 passed by the Judge, Family Courtcum-Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short, 'trial court').

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants are the owners of the plaint schedule property. The Plaintiff purchased the same on 1/11/2006 at the rate of Rs.1, 65, 000.00 per acre. The Plaintiff paid Rs.2, 00, 000.00 to the Defendants, for which the Defendants executed an agreement of sale in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants agreed to execute the sale deed within two months. In the meantime, they will get the land measured; as per the measurements, the prorated amount will be received, and they will execute the registered sale deed; it was also mentioned that if payment of the balance is delayed beyond two months, the advance will be forfeited and the contract will be cancelled. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and even now, the Plaintiff is ready to deposit the balance of the sale consideration. Still, the Defendants are not ready to perform their part of the contract. After that, there was an exchange of notices between both parties.

4. The 2nd Defendant filed a written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, contending that the Plaintiff failed to approach them to get the land measured, and pay the balance of sale consideration, and obtain the sale deed in his favour. The Plaintiff issued a legal notice dtd. 9/4/2007, though the agreement was broken by lapse of time. Also, time is the essence of the contract as explicitly stipulated in the sale agreement, and thereby, all rights accrued to the Plaintiff with the contract were lost. A reply dtd. 13/4/2007 was issued by the Defendants stating that if payment of the balance is delayed beyond two months, the advance amount will be forfeited, and the contract will be cancelled. The 2nd Defendant further contended that the Plaintiff never offered any pie or asked him to perform the contract. The Plaintiff delayed measuring the land and obtaining a sale deed after payment of the balance sale consideration. He further contended that time is the essence of the contract to sell immovable property; where advance was paid for the agreement to sell immovable property and the vendee had agreed to pay balance consideration by the stipulated date and on failure, advance was to be forfeited and the agreement cancelled; the Defendants did not commit any breach or delay in performing the contract.

5. The 1st Defendant filed a Memo adopting the written statement of the 2nd Defendant.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the terms and conditions and extent of the suit sale agreement dtd. 1/11/2006 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff are true, valid, duly executed and enforceable against the defendant?

2) If so, whether the time is the essence of the contract for sale and if sothe defendant is entitled to revoke the contract for sale and forfeit the amounts?

3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the contract for sale or any other alternative relief. If so, what relief?

4) To what relief?

7. During the trial, on behalf of the Plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.

8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of either side, the suit was decreed without costs, granting relief of specific performance of the contract under the suit agreement of sale directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to receive balance of sale consideration from the Plaintiff and execute the regular register sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of suit land in three months.