The main legal point established in the judgment is that time was not the essence of the contract for the sale of land, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract entitled them to a decree for specific performance.

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 passed by Sri Nagendra Prasad Tripathi, the then Subordinate Judge III, Danapur decree sealed and signed on 06.01.2006 in Title Suit No. 43 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent was decreed on contest with costs. The defendants were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff on receipt of balance of consideration money from the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment, failing which the same be executed through the process of the court on depositing the balance consideration money by the plaintiff. The defendants are the appellants here.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of specific performance of contract and in alternative decree for realization of Rs. 65,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the original defendants Rupa Rai, Arbind Rai along with one Sanjay Kumar (deceased) being in need of money for business declared for selling the land mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint and ultimately the matter was finalized in between the defendants and plaintiff through its Secretary Panchi Lal Rai at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kattha for area of 16 decimal and accordingly, after receipt of advance of Rs. 45,000/- Rupa Rai, Arbind Rai and Sanjay Kumar executed the deed of agreement for sale dated 28.10.1988 with promise to execute necessary sale deed with respect to land mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint in favour of plaintiff within six months till 27.04.1989 on receiving the balance consideration money from the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed from the defendants through the process of the court. It was also agreed by the plaintiff that if the plaintiff fails to get the sale deed executed after paying the balance consideration money within the stipulated period the earnest money would be forfeited. The deed of agreement for sale executed on 28.10.1988 was handed over to the Secretary of the plaintiff. The plaintiff being ready with consideration money always contacted to the defendants and late Sanjay Kumar requesting them to execute the sale deed but they evaded the matter on one ground or the other and in the meantime Arbind Prasad showing urgency demanded Rs. 20,000/- again and the plaintiff through its Secretary paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to said Arbind Prasad on 29.11.1988 and in proof of the same Arbind Prasad made endorsement to this effect at the back of first page of deed of agreement for sale and assured to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff contacted to the defendants several times and requested to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration amount but the defendants evaded the matter then finding no alternative the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 24.04.1989 to the defendants through its Advocate Shri Shiv Nath Sharma which the defendants knowingly and intentionally did not receive and bringing the postal peon in his collusion got the notice returned to the learned Advocate of the plaintiff by making collusive endorsement. The defendants with intention to grab the advance money of Rs. 65,000/- sent a legal notice dated 27.04.1989 through their Advocate Sri Rajendra Prasad mentioning false and wrong facts to which the plaintiffs sent reply dated 02.05.1989 controverting all the facts of the legal notice of the defendants stating that the plaintiff was or are always ready to perform its part of contract as per agreement and it was the defendants who were and are not ready to perform their part of contract. Thereafter, again the Secretary of the plaintiff met to the defendants in the month of December 1989 with balance consideration amount and requested them to execute the sale deed, then the defendants replied that due to some mishappening in their family they are unable to execute the sale deed and they would ex