Continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for the grant of specific performance. Plaintiff must establish financial capacity and diligence in prosecuting the suit. Plaintiff's unclean hands and false allegations disentitle him from claiming the relief.

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in A.S.No.430 of 1983 dated 17.07.1996.

2. Plaintiff is the appellant herein. The averments of the plaint in brief are that on 19.10.1978 the plaintiff and one Oothappan @ C.K.Chennappa Chetty entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs.32,000/-, and on the same date the said Chennappa Chetty received a sum of Rs.1000/- as advance amount from the plaintiff, as it was agreed between the parties that the balance of the sale price should be paid by the plaintiff before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the deed of sale within a period of six months.

3. On 20.11.1978, Chennappa Chetty received a further sum of Rs.4000/- and made necessary endorsement for the receipt of the same in the deed of agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff, he offered to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested Chennappa Chetty to execute the deed of sale, but Chennappa Chetty was postponing the same and he was demanding more money. The case of plaintiff is that Chennappa Chetty demanded the plaintiff a further sum of Rs.5000/-, more than the agreed sale price. On 31.10.1979, the said Chennappa Chetty demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- urgently towards the sale price and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.300/- only. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but Chennappa Chetty was postponing the same under one pretext or other.

4. The plaintiff issued a notice on 10.11.1979 demanding Chennappa Chetty to execute the sale deed, but Chennappa Chetty sent a reply contending that the plaintiff had no money and time is the essence of the contract. It is stated that Chennappa Chetty demanded a sum of Rs.3500/- more than the agreed sale price and a panchayat was held and in the said panchayat Chennappa Chetty insisted on the payment of a sum of Rs.3500/- more than the agreed sale price for which the plaintiff did not agree.

5. Chennappa Chetty died on 28.01.1980. Defendants 1 to 6 are his legal representatives and the plaintiff demanded the legal representatives to execute the deed of sale. They have also demanded a further sum of Rs.3500/-, more than the agreed price, for which the plaintiff was not willing to pay the same. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants were attempting to sell the suit property in favour of the seventh defendant and hence he informed the seventh defendant about the agreement of sale and requested him not to purchase the property. It is stated that the plaintiff went to the Office of the Sub Registrar Office at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of the seventh defendant and presented a petition to the Sub Registrar objecting to the registration of the deed of sale. The Sub Registrar directed him to seek his remedy in a court of law. It is the case of the plaintiff that the seventh defendant has purchased the property knowing fully well about the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was ready to purchase the property and hence the suit has been filed for specific performance.

6. The case of the defendants 1 to 6 is that it is false to state that the plaintiff requested Chennappa Chetty or the defendants to execute the deed of sale and the plaintiff has not paid the balance of sale consideration of Rs.26,700/- before the expiry of six months from the date of agreement. It is stated that there was no demand for the execution to the deed of sale and when the plaintiff apprehended that the suit property may be sold, he sold a portion of his land and mustered a portion of the sale consideration after one year and even then he was not in a position to pay the entire sale consideration. It is stated that the time of six months stipulated in the agreement is the essence of the contract