( 1 ) AGREEMENT of sale dated 10-6-1991 alleging that the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit house, and agreed to sell the same for consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- and executed the deed of agreement dated 10-6-1991 Ex. P-1. Defendant received an advance of Rs. 30,000/- on the date of agreement agreeing to receiver the balance of consideration within three months from the date of agreement and to execute the sale deed. But the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in spite of repeated requests. The defendant according to plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract even though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit for specific performance.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT has not disputed execution of the agreement Ex. P-1 and the advance of Rs. 30,000/ -. He has also not disputed that he had agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 1,01,000/- within three months from the date of the said agreement, and to execute the sale deed. But his contention is that the plaintiff was never willing and ready to perform his part of the contract as he had no money. According to him plaintiff has failed to report his readiness to get the property registered with all expenses. He committed default in not issuing any notice to him intimating his readiness to take the sale deed.

( 3 ) FROM the above pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff has shown that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for. (iii) What order.

( 4 ) IN proof of the said claim, plaintiff tendered evidence as P. W. 1 and relied on the evidence of two more witnesses viz. , chinnaswamy-P. W. 2 and Muniswamy-P. W. 3. The defendant is examined as D. W. 1. Suit document is marked on behalf of both the parties. The agreement is marked as Ex. P-l. No other document is relied upon by the parties. The Trial Court was not persuaded to accept the defence that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the plaintiff had no money to perform the contract and that the time was not the essence of the contract and therefore decreed the suit as prayed for, and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months from the date of the decree and put the plaintiff in possession Of the suit property. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of specific performance granted in favour of the plaintiff. I have heard the learned Advocates at length.

( 5 ) SRI C. S. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit is premature as the same was filed on 9-9-1991 a day before the expiry of three months. According to him the suit should have been filed on 10-9-1991. His second submission is that the pleadings of the plaintiff is not in conformity with Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, and forms 47 and 48 of the I Schedule to Civil Procedure Code. He further submits that the plaintiff has failed to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and the evidence on record discloses that he had no money at all to perform the contract. His third submission is that the tenor of the agreement Ex. P-l clearly shows that time is the essence of the contract even though the contract is in respect of immovable property which fact is not considered by the Court. His fourth submission is that the defendant was in a disadvantageous position and the Trial Court has not considered this aspect and also the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act while granting a decree for Specific performance. He submits that the trial Court clearly fell into error in granting a decree for specific performance without considering these facts. The findings of the trial Judge is not based on evidence led in by the parties. He therefore prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

( 6 )