Time is of the essence in contracts, and failure to perform within the agreed timeline results in the claim being barred by limitation under the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 07.01.2022in A.S.No.165 of 2018, on the file of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 18.07.2018in O.S.No.205 of 2007, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The 2^ndappellantherein is the2^nd plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein are the defendants in O.S.No.205 of 2007.

During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and his legal representative was brought on record as 2^nd plaintiff. During the pendency of the first appeal, the 1^st respondent died and his legal representative brought on record as 8^th respondent.

3.The deceased sole plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.205 of 2007 with a prayer for specific permanence of suit contract directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of 2^nd plaintiff and for alternative prayer if any reason, the Court is not inclined to grant a decree for specific performance, to grant a decree for refund of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum against the defendants with a charge over the plaint schedule property from the date of contract till the date of suit and for costs of the suit.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2^nd plaintiffin the above said suit filed A.S.No.165of 2018 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 2^nd plaintiffin the above suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.205of 2007, is as follows:

On 04.02.1994 the defendants entered into an agreement of sale to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.4,25,000/- to the 1^st plaintiff and received Rs.50,000/- as advance and agreed to execute registered sale deed on 15.05.1994after receiving balance amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. Later, the defendants did not come forward to execute registered sale deed stating that there was pending tenancy litigation between them and their elder brother D. Edukondalu. On 08.08.2007, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants. The defendants got issued a reply notice on 17.08.2007. The 1^st defendant executed gift deed in favour of 3^rd defendant in respect of Ac.0-88 cents. The 4^th defendant executed gift deed in favour of 3^rd defendant in respect of Ac.1-00 cents of land. The 3^rd defendant executed three gift deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.5 to 7. The 3^rd defendant again executed another gift deed in favour of 6^th defendant and that the 1^st plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The defendant Nos.1 and 4 filed written statement before the trial Court contending that the defendant Nos.1 and 4 are residents of Hyderabad and they never authorized defendant Nos.2 and 3 to enter