Quoting of lesser price in the sale deed does not mean novation or substitution.

A. Subbulakshmy, J.

1. These appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree passed in C.S.Nos. 280 of 1981 and 44 of 1985 on the file of this Court.

2. C.S. No. 280 of 1981 was filed by the plaintiff Mrs. Kumudam for specific performance of the contract dated 17. 1979 against the defendant Mrs.Rajam Gopalakrishnan. C.S. No. 44 of 1985 was initially filed in the City Civil Court as O.S. No. of 1980 and was later transferred to this Court for being tried along with C.S. 280 of 1981. That suit was filed by Mrs. Rajam against Mrs. Kumudam (Plaintiff in C.S. No.280 1981 and her husband to deliver back the title deeds relating to the suit property.

3. The case of the plaintiff Mrs. Kumudam in C.S. No. 280 of 1981 is as follows: The defendant Mrs. Rajam Gopalakrishnan is the owner of the property bearing plot No. 187 door No.46, West C.I.T. Nagar, Madras.600 035. She entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 17. 1979 to sell the suit property for Rs. 2, 05, 000. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 25, 000 to the defendant. Three months time from 17. 1979 was fixed in the agreement for completing the sale transaction and option was given for extension of time by consent for completion of sale. Time for completion was extended till 211. 1979 in order to enable plaintiff to mobilise financial resources. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not taking steps to complete the sale transaction and deliberately delayed the registration of sale deed even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and had contacted the defendant with draft sale deed for her approval. The plaintiff further states that she asked the defendant to convey the property by delivering vacant possession, and inspite of exchange of notices between the parties and the readiness on the part of the plaintiff to complete the sale transaction, the defendant evaded to conclude the sale and so , the plaintiff had to come forward with the suit for specific performance of the contract.

4. The defendant admits the execution of the agreement of sale and also receipt of the advance amount. The defendant contends that she handed over all the original title deeds to the husband of the plaintiff, and as the plaintiff wanted time to mobilise her financial resources, the time was extended till 211. 1979 and even then the plaintiff did not mobilise the financial resources and she did not come forward to perform her part of the contract. The defendant further contends that even though the defendant indicated in her reply notice that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the plaintiff to her surprise sent a draft sale deed mentioning the sale consideration as Rs. 1, 45, 000 instead of Rs. 2, 05, 000 and as time was the essence of the contract and as the plaintiff failed to perform her part of the contract, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return the title deeds stating that the defendant was willing to refund the advance amount of Rs.25, 000 and as there was no response from the plaintiff, the defendant had to file the suit in C.S No.44 of 1985 (formerly O.S. No.280 of 1981) for return of the title deeds. So, the defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of the contract due to the delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff.

5. The defendant also filed additional written statement contending that since the value of the property was going up abnormally, time was made essence of the contract and if the plaintiff had the necessary finance to complete the sale within three months, the defendant would have been in a position to give vacant possession and that because the sale was not concluded within that period, the tenant in the suit property could not be evicted and the plaintiff also did not show her bonafide in depositing the sale consideration in a nationalised bank and because of the action the plaintiff, the def