The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, as well as the respondents' failure to fulfill their obligations, justified the decree for specific performance.

Mohammed, J. This is an appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No. 327 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, N. Parur, is the appellant. The defendants in the suit are the respondents. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dismissing the above suit.

2. The basic facts involved in the appeal can be capsulated thus: The agreement sought to be enforced in the suit is Ext. Al dated 30-9-1990 executed between the appellant and respondents. By Ext. Al the respondents had agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties in favour of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-- per cent, within a period of six months from the date of agreement after satisfying the conditions stipulated therein. The respondents had received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as advance towards the sale consideration. The balance consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed as above. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30-3-1991. Since the respondents had failed to tender the encumbrance certificate, title deeds etc. to the appellant and to measure out the property within the time specified, the appellant issued Ext. A2 notice on 2-4-1991 to which respondents sent Ext. A4 reply. The suit was filed on 28-5-1991.

3. In order to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate to find out the essential terms of Ext. Al agreement of sale. Those terms are the following:

i) The respondents had agreed to sell thirty cents of land with trees thereon and the right of pathway as provided in schedule of Ext. B1 registered partition deed of the year 1965, more specifically described in plaint B schedule, to the appellant.

ii) The appellant had agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per cent in respect of the area which is to be measured, after deducting the advance amount of Rs. 3,000/- paid at the lime of execution of the agreement.

iii) The respondents had agreed to tender documents of title, encumbrance certificate etc. and satisfy the appellant as to the non-liability of any prior debt, or encumbrance, irrespective the property agreed to be sold before the execution of the sale deed within the time specified.

iv) The respondents shall measure out the land at their expense and satisfy the appellant as to the extent of the property within the aforesaid period.

v) The appellant had agreed that in case she fails to pay the ha lance consideration and execute the sale deed within the lime stipulated, the advance amount of Rs. 3,000/ - paid towards sale consideration could he adjusted towards the loss and damages sustained by the respondents and she had no right to claim the said amount thereafter.

vi) The respondents had agreed that in case they fail to execute the sale deed as per the terms of agreement, the appellant shall be entitled to realise the advance amount and also equal amount thereof, total being Rs. 6,000/- from the respondents.

4. The property sought to be sold as per the terms of Ext. Al agreement is described in plaint schedule. The extent of property mentioned in the plaint schedule is 30 cents including all the tress standing thereon in survey No. 218/9 of Kottuvally village, which is part of a larger extent of 97 cents of land. It also includes a pathway. The description of pathway is contained in B schedule of the partition deed of the year 1965 as specifically referred to in Ext. Al agreement. This pathway having a width of 8 links in located between the B schedule on the western side and C schedule on the eastern side,

5. The contentions of the appellant in the suit is that, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement but the respondents had not performed their part of the contract. The respondents had not measured the property and not tendered the title deeds and encumbrance certificate within the period of six months. The appellant's husband, Raja