JUDGMENT:_ The plaintiff's suit for specific performance of agreement dated 13-190 has been decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Quepem by Judgment/Decree dated 24-2-1997. Hence this appeal by the defendants.

2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said civil suit. Some admitted facts are required to be stated to dispose of this appeal.

3. The defendants are Owners of a property admeasuring 584 sq. metres surveyed under NO.128 of Curchorem Village in which they constructed a house. The said plot was purchased by the defendant No.1 earlier by Deed of Sale dated 22-2-1982. By virtue of agreement dated 13-1-90, rectified by another agreement dated 22-2-1990, the defendant No.1 (since expired and now represented by his legal representatives) entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. It is necessary to refer to some of the clauses of the said agreement. By virtue of clauses (1) and (2), the suit plot along with the house was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which Rs.10,000/- were paid by a cheque, as earnest money. Clause (3) stipulated that the defendants would hand over the documents, and in fact the Sale Deed dated 22-2-1982 was handed Over to the plaintiffs. By virtue of clause (4), the sale deed between the plaintiffs and the defendants was to be executed within 3 to 4 months from the date of production of the occupancy certificate and tax receipt by the defendants from the Municipal Council. By virtue of clause (6) it was agreed that the defendants would not enter into any type of agreement with any other person in respect of the said plot and the said house till the sale deed was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Clause (7) also specifically stipulated that the compensation in money would not be an adequate relief and either of the parties would be entitled to ask for the specific performance of the said agreement.

4. By letter dated 30-1-1991, the defendants sent the occupancy certificate and house tax receipt as stipulated, and called upon the plaintiffs to take immediate steps to execute the sale deed. Thereafter there was silence between both the parties i.e. as far as written word is concerned, though each claims that they approached the other for the purpose of execution of the sale deed. The defendants, thereafter, by letter dated 21-3-1994-Exhibit PW –1/C called upon the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed within a period of 8 days and the plaintiffs by letter dated 31-03-1994-Exhibit PW-1/D told the defendants that they were willing to execute the same and called upon the defendants to fix the time and place. This letter was returned "unclaimed", but, it has got to be presumed that it was received by the defendants as it was a registered letter sent at correct address of the defendants and a bare denial from the defendants, that it was not received by them, would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption, that was available to the plaintiffs under the relevant provisions of law.

5. Thereafter, the defendants are stated to have entered into another agreement with one Leena Matilda Fernandes, wife of Joaquim Fernandes on 13th June, 1994, and, after the plaintiffs came to know about the same, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance on or about 25th July, 1994.

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are ready and willing to execute the sale deed as per the agreement. The case of the defendants is that time was the essence of contract since the defendants were indebted to the Bank of India. It is also the case of the defendants that since the plaintiffs were not coming forward to execute the sale deed and failed to advance Rs.50.000/- which was agreed to be advanced at the time of execution of the agreement and as the defendants were in serious financial difficulties, they could not wait for the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed at their sweet pleasure an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document