IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that time is not an essence of contract in specific performance cases, and the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance despite the trial court's dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 19.12.2001, in O.S. No. 14 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiffs filed the above said suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.03.1994 and also for grant of compensation for Ac.0.50 cents of land which is part of the suit schedule land.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 14 of 1998, are as under:

i) The first plaintiff is the wife of one late Shaik Mahaboob Peeran. Plaintiffs 2 to 12 are the children of Mahaboob Peeran. The first defendant is the mother of the second defendant. The first defendant got another son by name Unnam Ramakrishna Reddy. On 29.03.1994 the first defendant executed an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of late Mahaboob Peeran agreeing to sell the same @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The extent agreed to be sold is Ac.3.30 cents situated in two survey numbers. On the date of agreement of sale, the first defendant received an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. The balance of sale consideration was agreed to be paid within 6 months. Subsequently on 10.04.1994 and on 19.05.1994 Ramakrishna Reddy, who is the elder son of first defendant, received an amount of Rs.5,000/- each on behalf of first defendant and the first defendant herself received an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 11.05.1994. The said payments were endorsed on the agreement of sale, altogether the first defendant has received an amount of Rs.1,30,000/. When the first defendant failed to execute sale deeds, inspite of demands made by late Mahaboob Peeran, then Mahaboob Peeran issued lawyer's notice on 16.09.1994 to the first defendant demanding her to perform her part of contract.

ii) On enquiries, Mahaboob Peeran came to know that the correct survey numbers are 135/2 and 136/2 and the actual extent available was Ac.2.84 cents, but not Ac.3.30 cents. Late Mahaboob Peeran expressed his willingness to perform his part of contract even after the land was measured. The first defendant got issued a reply notice on 17.11.1994 admitting the agreement of sale but stating that she has gifted Ac.0.50 cents in survey No. 135/2 on the Western side with specific boundaries to second defendant on 14.06.1990 and the sale transaction was arranged at the behest of her elder son Ramakrishna Reddy and the first defendant expressed her willingness to execute sale deed with regard to the remaining portion of the land at the price agreed to. Late Mahaboob Peeran was willing to forego Ac.0.50 cents of land. It was discovered that actual survey numbers are 135/2 and 136/2 and the exact extent contained in those survey numbers was not Ac.2.84 cents, but actually Ac.2.34 cents was available. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

5. The defendants filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

i) The first defendant never intended to sell the suit schedule property to anybody including late Mahaboob Peeran. There were no consultations also. The agreement of sale is a concocted one, the first defendant did not sign in the alleged agreement of sale dated 29.03.1994 and she did not receive any amount as mentioned in the agreement of sale.

ii) The defendants filed additional written statement. After amending the written statement, the first defendant took a plea which is contrary to her pleadings in the written statement in the first instance. As per the amended pleadings, prior to one week of Ex.A5, first defendant informed that she was always ready and willing to receive balan