Time is the essence of the agreement for sale.

(S.Jagadeesan,J)

The appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1993 in C.S.No.287 of 1982 granting the relief of specific performance in favour of the respondent. The respondent herein filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28.8.1981 entered into between the respondent and the first appellant, represented by the appellants 2 and 3. The case of the respondent is that the first appellant, represented by their Director Mr.T.V. Raghavan negotiated for the sale of the building and vacant site at No.46, Cathedral Road, Madras-86 belonging to the first appellant herein. After the terms were agreed, on 28.8.1981 an agreement of sale was signed on behalf of the respondent by its Director Mr.T.V. Raghavan and on behalf of the first appellant by its General Manager and Power Holder Mr.K.S. Hari. On the date of the said agreement a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the first appellant by way of advance and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.82 lakhs. The suit agreement was entered into pending investigation of the title of the first appellant in respect of the suit property. The terms of the suit agreement would reveal that the first appellant was under obligation to produce all documents of title for the investigation of their title and the sale shall be subject to the approval of the first appellant's title by the respondents' advocate. As per the terms of the agreement, the respondent called upon the first appellant and their Directors, the second and third appellants herein, to furnish the documents of title in their possession, the details of encumbrance on the property and also the Income-tax Clearance Certificate which are necessary to complete the sale. The first appellant did not respond properly and due to the conduct of the first appellant, the respondent was forced to approach the appellants 2 and 3 for completion of the sale. The second and third respondents promised to comply with the formalities without any undue delay. In the meeting held between the parties on 7.9.1981 the appellants agreed to furnish all the documents needed by the respondent within 2 or 3 days. The respondent also agreed to get ready to pay the balance of sale consideration as per the terms of the agreement of sale within one week from the date of the appellant's made available of the documents. On 9th September, 1981 the first appellant's Manager called on the respondent and showed the Income-tax Clearance Certificate and renewed the request of the first appellant for further payment of Rs.10 lakhs, as advance pending finalisation of the sale. Since the appellants failed to furnish the necessary documents, the respondent, by their letter dated 14.9.1991 requested the first appellant to furnish the documents and particulars, as the respondent wanted to complete the sale, since huge funds were blocked. The first appellant by their letter dated 15.9.1991 called upon the respondent to expedite the sale by making certain false and untenable allegations. Even though the first appellant was called upon to produce as many as nine documents, they did not produce any document and also any information pertaining to those documents. Once again by letter dated 19.9.1981 the respondent called upon the first appellant to furnish the solvency certificate. The second appellant expressed his apologies for the delay and undertook to produce the same as soon as the auditing of the accounting year ending 31.3.1981 was completed and further he demanded an additional advance of Rs.10 lakhs. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 21.9.1981 on the undertaking that the first appellant will furnish rest of the documents by 30.9.1981 and the advances so far paid will be held by the first appellant on trust for the respondent. It was also agreed that on production of such document an additional advance of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid, at any rate not later than the first week of October, 1981. However, the first appellant faile