The main legal point established in the judgment is that time was not the essence of the contract, and the plaintiff's suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the implications of being a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice.

R.G. Ketkar, J.

Heard Ms. M.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.L. Dharashive, learned counsel for respondent No. 2(i) to 2(v) at length.

2. By this Appeal, u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), original defendant No. 2 has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 30/06/1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ausa in R.C.S. No. 62/1980, as also the Judgment and decree dated 11/02/1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Latur in R.C.A. No. 96 of 1986. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by Limbabai D/o Abaji Jamdar through her legal representative for specific performance of contract dated 12/08/1973. The Courts below directed the legal representative of defendant No. 1 Niranjan and defendant No. 2 Venunath Sambha More to jointly execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after accepting the consideration of Rs. 500/(Rupees Five Hundred only) in respect of house bearing 1166 (old), which is renumbered as 1318/1 (new) ad measuring East-West 87 feet from southern side and 57 feet from northern side and 32½ feet North South including 7 khan Dhaba bounded by Govt. road from East, by the land and house of Dwarkadas from West, by the house of Sambha More from South and the open house No. 1166/1 from northern side at Ausa. (for short, 'suit house'). The Courts below also declared that the sale deed dated 16/07/1977 executed by defendant No. 1 Niranjan in favour of defendant No. 2 Venunath Sambha More is not binding on the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is permanently restrained from causing any interference or obstruction in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over suit house. The parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their status in the trial Court. The relevant and material facts giving rise to the present Second Appeal are as follows.

3. The plaintiff instituted Suit for specific performance of contract dated 12/08/1973 and for perpetual injunction inter-alia contending that defendant No. 1 Niranjan was the exclusive owner of the suit house. By an agreement dated 12/08/1973 (Exh. 56), defendant No. 1 agreed to sell his house to Limbabai, the original Plaintiff (since decessed), for total consideration of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only). Defendant No. 1 accepted Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards earnest money. Defendant No. 1 also executed a receipt at Exh. 57 and put plaintiff Limbabai in possession of the suit house. It is further contended that the plaintiff had applied to defendant No. 1 to specifically perform his part of contract, but defendant No. 1 had not done so. The plaintiff further asserted that he was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 16/07/1977, defendant No. 2 purchased the suit house despite having notice that defendant No. 1 had already agreed to sell suit house to the plaintiff and handed over possession. The cause of action accrued to plaintiff on 16/07/1977. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted Suit for specific performance of agreement of the suit house and for perpetual injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from causing any interference or obstruction in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's possession over the suit house.

4. Defendant No. 2 resisted the Suit by filing Written Statement at Exh. 39 and denied all the adverse allegations against him. It was contended that the document dated 12/08/1973 is a false and forged document and the same is not admitted by him. It was further denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from defendant No. 1 and also taken possession thereof. Defendant No. 2 did not admit execution of the agreement and receipt. It was contended that defendant No. 2 had purchased the suit property on 16/07/1977 by executing registered sale deed. Defendant No. 1 did not file Written Statement.

5. During the pendency of the Suit, defendant No. 1 expired. He was issue