In a suit for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance, the court will look at the surrounding circumstances to ascertain how far the express stipulation as to the time for performance and the non-performance within the stipulated time affects the plaintiff's claim.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, at the instance of the defendant, is directed against an appellate decree affirming a decree for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance, passed by a learned Munsif.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff sold the disputed property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-, on January 29, 1952. On the very next day there was an agreement (Ex. 1) between the parties, by which the defendant agreed to reconvey the aforementioned property to the plaintiffs, it the latter' repaid to the defendant the sum pi Rs. 3000/- within January 1953. Time was made the essence of the contract under the said agreement.

( 3 ) ON the property conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant, there were certain tenants and it was expressly stipulated in the agreement (Ex. 1) that rents would be realised by the defendant and the plaintiffs would have no concern therewith. Also a portion of the property admittedly remained in occupation of the plaintiffs.

( 4 ) ON July 29, 1952, Sankarlal Saha, one of the plaintiffs, wrote a letter (Ex. 2) to the defendant asking from him a statement of rents realised from the tenants, so that the same might be taken into consideration in calculating the amount payable to obtain the reconveyance. This letter was written under a misapprehension because the realisations made by the defendant had no effect on the sum payable for obtaining reconveyance. The defendant caused a reply (Ex. 2a), to be sent through his pleader, to the aforesaid letter refusing to submit any statement as asked for. He rightly did so in our opinion.

( 5 ) ON October 3, 1952, the plaintiffs through their pleader, sent a formal demand for reconveyance (Ex. 2b) to the pleader for the defendant.

( 6 ) IN continuation of the letter (Ex. 2b) the plaintiffs' pleader also forwarded a draft deed of reconveyance to the defendant, along with his letter, dated October 25, 1952 (Ex. 2d ).

( 7 ) ON January 24, 1953, the pleader for the defendant wrote a letter (Ex. 2e) to the pleader for the Plaintiffs to the following effect:--* * * * * * i have been instructed to give you notice that my client aforesaid is ready and willing to re-convey at your client's costs the properties so sold and give possession thereof to your clients if your clients act in accordance with the terms Ot the said agreement and also pay off the admitted amounts that my client has already spent, towards payment of arrears of rent of the land and electric charges and other necessary costs to "make the properties free from incumbrances and charges etc. " this letter was to all intents and purposes written in reply to the two letters sent on behalf of the plaintiffs but cleverly enough the letter (Ex. 2e) dd not refer to the plaintiff's letters. Moreover, the aforesaid letter contained a demand for more money than was lawfully payable by the plaintiffs to obtain the reconveyance. That letter, therefore, was not a letter, by which the defendant expressed his willingness to perform bis part, under the agreement for reconveyance.

( 8 ) NOT having received back the draft conveyance approved by the defendant, the plaintiffs' lawyer sent a reminder, dated January 29, 1953 (Ex, 2f), asking for the approved draft.

( 9 ) ON January 31, 1953, defendants' pleader replied (Ex, 2g) to the plaintiff's letter, dated January 29, 1953, to the following effect:--"the copy of the draft conveyance as referred to in your letter under reply has been duly approved of as altered and amended by my client's pleader Sri A. G. Bhattacharyya and handed over to your pleader Sri C. C. Roy Chaudhuri in the 2nd week of January, 1953 through Joydev Patra, the registered clerk of Sri A. C. Bhattacharyya. Please note that time was of the essence of the contract ana time as stipulated in, the Ekrarnaroa has already expired and that you, by your delay have forfeited your right to get back the property from my client. "mr. C. C. Roy Chaudhuri, plaintiffs pleader, replied to the aforesaid lette