No interference required in second appeal.

Second defendant is the appellant in the above second appeal. First respondent herein has filed O.S.No.510 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the second respondent in this appeal and the first respondent-plaintiff on 210. 1978 for the sale of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff was that the second respondent herein has agreed to sell the property in question on 210. 1978 to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.18,100 that various amounts were paid on the dates set out in detail in the plaint, that a balance of Rs.8,100 was due towards the sale consideration, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, that for a sum of Rs.4,000 that was paid on 24. 1979, there was no endorsement on the agreement, that even if the court comes to the conclusion that there is no proof for payment of the said sum of Rs.4,000 the plaintiff is prepared to deposit the said amount also on a direction given by the court and that in spite of the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to purchase the property, the second respondent has sold the property to the appellant, which necessitated the filing of the suit for specific performance.

2. The defendants contested the claim on several grounds.

3. After trial and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, in his judgment dated 110. 1981 held that the suit agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant was true, valid and ending on the second defendant also, that the second defendant is not a bona fide purchaser without notice of the suit agreement, that the petition alleged to have taken place between the first defendant and he second defendant was not true and that the suit agreement Ex.A-1, could be enforced against the defendants. On an additional issue framed as to whether the plaintiff could be said to have been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, though the trial court held that there was no slackness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and that he was ready and willing, it also held that the claim of the plaintiff that he paid Rs.4,000 on 24. 1979 cannot be held to be true. Finally, the suit was decreed as prayed for on condition that the plaintiff should deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.8,100 in ten days, with the usual stipulation normally and necessarily to be included in a decree for specific performance.

4. Aggrieved, the second defendant filed the appeal in A.S.No.144 of 1981 before the District Court, Erode District at Erode. The learned District Judge also had gone into the matter at considerable length and detail formulating the necessary points to be adjudicated in the appeal. While confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff was ready and will ing to perform his part of the contract and as such he is entitled to specific performance sought for and the second defendant-appellant before the lower appellate court cannot be considered to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of the suit agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate court ordered only modification of the decree to the extent that the amount to be deposited by the plaintiff towards the balance of consideration is due to the second defendant and not to the first defendant. Hence, the second appeal by the second defendant in the suit, who was unsuccessful before the courts below:

5. At the time of admitting the second appeal, it was considered necessary to deal with the question as to whether the courts below could be said to have committed an error in holding that the time was not the essence of the contract under Ex.A-1, that whether the second defendant was not a bona fide purchaser and that whether the courts below were right in decreein