Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellants-original defendants under Section 100 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97/2005 by the Additional District Judge, Navsari dated 15.09.2015 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 66/1982 by the Civil Judge (SD), Navsari dated 12.03.1985 posing substantial questions of law as follows:-

"A. WHETHER time was the essence of the contract and the Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement of Sec. 16(C) of the Act within such time prescribed in the contract?

B. WHETHER the Ld. Trial Court has erred by granting decree for specific performance on the basis of unregistered document for transfer of immovable property valuing more than Rs. 100/- as the same is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court India reported in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206 in the matter of "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana" decided in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13917 of 2009 D/- 11-10-2011?

C. WHETHER the document of agreement for sale can be considered for granting relief for specific performance when such document was admitted only for collateral purpose?

D. WHETHER the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed decree for specific performance, though the plaintiff has failed to show that he has sufficient funds to pay the balance amount and is ready and willing to perform his part to the said unregistered agreement for sale within stipulated time as provided provision of Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

E. WHETHER the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Court are perverse in appreciating the oral evidence of witnesses in relation to the crucial question of time limit of the contract, to decide the controversy between the parties?"

2. Heard learned advocate, Shri N.V. Gandhi for the appellants and learned advocate, Shri Zubin Bharda for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi referred to the background of the facts and submitted that the agreement to sale was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the purchase of the land on 25.12.1979 and the defendants had agreed to sell the land subject to the rate and terms and conditions as stated in the agreement to sell. Thus the sale consideration was Rs. 48,478/- was to be paid as stipulated in the agreement to sell within the period prescribed. He submitted that initially payment of Rs. 2,000/- was made and further amount of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid within 15 days and entire amount of consideration was to be paid within a period of five months and the sale deed was to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the learned advocate, Shri Gandhi referred to the papers and submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate as to whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to execute the sale deed on payment of consideration. He submitted that the agreement to sell is not a registered agreement and, therefore, it could not have been relied upon. For that purpose, he referred to Section 17 of the Registration Act. However he mainly focused on the aspect of readiness and willingness to perform his part by making payment of the consideration. Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi referred to the papers and submitted that as the plaintiffs have failed to show that he was ready and willing to perform the contract and fulfillment of his obligation, the decree for specific performance could not have been granted. He again emphasized that time is essence of the contract, which has not been considered at all. In support of his submissions, learned advocate, Shri Gandhi also referred to and relied upon Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and submitted and readiness and willingness should be shown as required under Section 16(c) of the Act. He submitted that as the plaintiffs have failed to comply wit