Acceptance by post is admissible unless the offerer expressly or impliedly directs to the contrary.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance in respect of the property described in the plaint.

( 2 ) ON the 23rd April, 1937, the plaintiff executed in favour of defendant No. 1 a conveyance in respect of the property in suit for a consideration of Rs. 300/- On the same date an agreement was executed as between the parties under which defendant No. 1 agreed to reconvey the self same property in favour of the plaintiff. It was stipulated that if Rs. 300/- be paid in one instalment within the month of Chaitra before the expiry of the Bengali year 1348, the contract would be specifically enforced.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff came to Court with the story that he had offered to make the payment on the 7th Palgoon, 1348, B. S. , but that the defendant had refused to accept the same. On the 9th April, following, i. e. , before the end of Chaitra 1348, B. S. , the plff. served a registered letter upon defendant No. 1 through a lawyer but in spite of the same defendant No. 1 had failed and neglected to receive the amount, or to execute the deed of reconveyance. During the cadastral survey operations, defendant No. 2 is alleged to have wrongly and fraudulently got himself recorded as an under-raiyat under defendant No. 1. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to get reconveyance from defendant No. 1 of the property in suit in the same condition as it was when it was sold to defendant No. 1 and the agreement was executed.

( 4 ) SEPARATE defences were filed by the two defendants. Defendant No. 2 contends that he was the tenant in respect of the property in suit from a date even before the plaintiff had sold the land in suit to defendant No. 1. He claims to be a bona fide tenant from at least 1932. Defendant No. 1 contests the plff's. claim for specific performance on the ground that there was no tender of money to him within the stipulated date and as time was the essence of the contract the plaintiff is not entitled to get any reconveyance. It is further contended that the plaintiff was not either ready or capable of fulfilling the conditions imposed under the contract. The tenancy right as claimed by defendant No. 2 is supported by. defendant No. 1.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit on a finding that there was no sufficient tender to defendant No. 1 and that time was the essence of the contract; and that no payment had been made within the stipulated date.

( 6 ) ON appeal by the plaintiff, this decision has been affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the appellant, it is argued in the first place, that on a proper interpretation of the contract it ought to have been held that time was not the essence of the contract. Secondly, even on the finding that the verbal tender, alleged by the plaintiff as having been made on the 7th Palgoon, 1348, B. S. , had not been proved, it would to have been held that the Pleader's letter sent to defendant No. 1 on the 9th April, 1942, was sufficient in law.

( 8 ) IN support of the first point reference may be made to the terms contained in the deed of agreement, dated the 23rd April, 1937, which provided, inter alia that if the entire amount, namely, Rs. 318/- were paid in any year in one instalment before the end of the year 1348, B. S. , the defendant would be bound to give up possession of the land in suit. If the defendant does not readily give up possession the plaintiff would be entitled to file a suit in competent Court, deposit the amount in question and get a conveyance executed. It is further provided that if within the due date mentioned, namely, the end of Chaitra, 1348, B. S. , the amount in question be not paid, the defendant would not be bound to give up possession of the land and all the rights created under the agreement would come to an end.

( 9 ) IF there be no legal bar to time being the essence of the contract in the case of a contract for reco