The Court emphasized that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is essential in a suit for specific performance, even when time is not the essence of the contract.

MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.—This appeal is filed by the original defendant against the judgment and decree passed in G.S. No. 4992/2002 by City Civil Court, Bangalore. The respondent herein was the plaintiff. Respondent herein filed suit for specific performance based on the agreement of sale Ex. P-1 dated 21.4.1999 relating to land bearing Survey No. 81/1C, measuring 20 guntas, situated at Bilekalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants being the owners of the land bearing Survey N0.81/1C, measuring 20 guntas, situated at Bilekalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk proposed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. After negotiation, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property for sale consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, an agreement was entered into on 21.4.1999 as per Ex. P-1. On the date of the agreement, Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money. A further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 19.6,1999 and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid on 22.7.1999. Thus, in all, Rs. 2 lakhs were paid to the defendants as earnest money. From out of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the plaintiff under Ex. P-1, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to one Mr, Dayanand Pal for getting the land released. The agreement stipulates one year time for completion of the contract. The plaintiff avers that inspite of his repeated requests, the defendants did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed within the period of one year on the ground that the khata was not changed in the name of the defendants. After waiting for more than two years, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.7.2002 to the defendants calling upon them to execute the Sale Deed. The defendants replied to the said notice on 26.7.2002 denying the request of the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale Ex. P-1 dated 21.4.1999. According to the plaintiff, time is not the essence of the contract.

3. The defendants admit that they are the absolute owners, and in possession of the suit schedule property. They admit that they have received Rs. 2 lakhs on different dates and the last amount of Rs. 1 lakh (out of Rs. 2 lakhs paid) was paid on 22.7.1999; the plaintiff has not come forward to perform his part of the contract and to take absolute sale deed from the defendants by paying the remaining balance of amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement; since the plaintiff did not pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs within the stipulated period and as he did not come forward to take the absolute Sale Deed from the defendants, the defendants have forfeited the advance amount paid by him by rescinding the contract as there was breach of contract. According to the defendants, time is the essence of the contract, hence, they pray for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was neither ready nor willing to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs to perform his part of the contract for obtaining the sale deed.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court.

Issues:

(vernacular matter not given)

Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and examined his friend as PW-2 who is the attesting witness to the Ex. P-1. He got marked 11 exhibits, On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 2 is examined. Based on the material on record and after hearing, the trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs. The said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is assailed in this appeal

5. Sri M.A. Humayun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants submits that the execution