Suit for specific performance Belated filing not a ground to non-suit the plaintiff.

N. KANNADASAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants in A. S. No. 469 of 1986 are defendants-1 and 2 in the suit. The first respondent (since deceased) is the plaintiff and the other respondents are the legal representatives of the plaintiff and defendants-3 and 5.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 30. 6. 1980, fixing the sale consideration for a sum of Rs. 67,000/- and the defendants-1 and 2 have received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance. According to the plaintiff, defendants-1 and 2 have agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 57,000/-on or before 15. 11. 1980 and execute the sale deed. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he was having necessary money to pay the balance sale consideration. Since defendants-1 and 2 have delayed the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a telegram on 15. 11. 1980, requesting defendants-1 and 2 to go over to the Sub Registrars office at Valappadi to execute the sale deed and complete the formalities.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, though the telegram was received by defendants-1 and 2, they did not turn up; but sent a reply stating that they would execute the sale deed on 20. 11. 1980. The plaintiff has further contended that even though it was agreed to sell the land as indicated above, which included the suit property and two electric motors and tamarind tree and other trees, in all worth about Rs. 5,500/-, defendants-1 and 2 removed the same, and as such, a notice was issued to them to deduct the said value. In fact, though the plaintiff was waiting in the office Sub Registrar on 20. 11. 1980 as requested by defendants-1 and 2, they did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Instead of turning up to the Office of the Sub Registrar, defendants-1 and 2 have sent a reply on 211. 1980 with various false allegations. Hence, the suit for specific performance was filed for the relief stated therein.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS-1 and 2 have contended that though the agreement of sale was entered into and they have received the advance, as stated by the plaintiff, it is not correct to state that they have failed to perform their part of the contract, as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further contended that they were waiting in the Sub Registrars Office on 20. 11. 1980 to register the document; however, the plaintiff did not turn up. They have further contended that the plaintiff has not turned up subsequently and the other allegations about the mediation, negotiations, etc. , are false. It is also contended that the plaintiff had not approached the Court immediately thereafter and his inaction in filing the suit after a prolonged delay would show that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

( 5 ) THE trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence let in by both the parties, has held that defendants-1 and 2 have come forward with a false case as regards the possession of the suit property and that the plaintiff was a man of means and that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In view of the dispute with regard to the value of the electric motor and cutting of trees, the plaintiff is justified in filing a suit with a delay. After observing to the effect that the value of the trees should be adjusted in the sale consideration, the trial Court has decreed the suit.

( 6 ) AS against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants-1 and 2 filed the first appeal contending that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the trial Court was not correct in granting the decree.

( 7 ) THE appellate Court, after considering the pleadings, has dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree, the above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by defendants-1 and 2.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for