JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.879 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondents herein are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, who died pending the proceedings.

2. The case of the plaintiff was as follows:

On 30.6.1980 the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit property for Rs.6,500. On the same day the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.500 to the defendant as advance. As per the terms of the agreement the defendant was to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.6,000 and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Though time was fixed as one year, i.e. 30.6.1980 to 29.6.1981 in the contract, the parties intended that the time was not the essence of the contract. If the purchaser failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the agreement would get not only cancelled, but the purchaser would also lose the advance and all rights to the property. The plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.1,000 also to the defendant in the presence of Thiru Ramakrishna and Durai of Senguttai Village in 1981. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. She approached the defendant several times to execute the sale deed in her favour after receiving the balance of sale consideration. The defendant was postponing the execution for reasons best known to him. Finally the plaintiff issued a registered lawyer notice on 21.7.1982 demanding execution of sale deed in her favour. The defendant sent a reply containing false allegations. The plaintiff was having enough money to perform her part of the contract. She was ready and willing to complete the sale as per the terms of the agreement from the date of the document till the filing of the suit. Only the defendant was postponing the execution of the sale deed and finally refused to do so through his reply. Hence she had to file the suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement and an additional written statement. In the written statement it is stated as follows:

The agreement was true as also the payment of Rs.500 as advance. However, it was false to state that time was not the essence of the contract. It was also equally false to state that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that she had enough money to complete the transaction. It was also false to state that the plaintiff approached the defendant several times to execute the sale deed and that the defendant was postponing to perform his part of the contract. Time was indeed the essence of the contract. The plaintiff specifically agreed to perform her part of the contract on or before 19.6.1981 and that was the reason why time had been stipulated in the agreement. The suit filed by the plaintiff after the expiry of the time was hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of her contract. She did not have the wherewithal. There was no bona fide in filing the suit. If really she was having enough money to perform her part of the contract, she should deposit the balance sale consideration within a week from the date of the filing of the written statement. The defendant was repeatedly demanding the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract. She never came forward to purchase the property. She had abandoned the agreement for sale. Because she failed to perform her part of the contract, the defendant could not purchase some other property he wanted to. He had sustained heavy loss. The value of the property had increased. Having kept quiet for a long time, the plaintiff had filed the suit just a week prior to the expiry of the three year period from the date of the agreement. This would show that she had wanted to get an unfair advantage. In such change of circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract. She must prove affirmatively that all throughout

Click Here to Read the rest of this document