Time is of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property, and performance of contractual obligations within the stipulated time is crucial. Subsequent conveyance of the property during the pendency of legal proceedings may impact the right to continue an appeal.

This second appeal is brought forth by the plaintiff aggrieved over the judgment of the first appellate Court namely the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, made in A.S.No.68/88 whereby the judgment of the trial Court namely the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, granting a decree in O.S.No.200/81 a suit for specific performance on an agreement for sale, was reversed by dismissing the suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit with the following pleadings:

The first respondent/defendant, the owner of the property namely a small piece of land measuring 40 cents in Survey No.92/2, entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 4. 1980, wherein the consideration was fixed at Rs.29,000/-. Out of the same, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid as advance. It was also understood that the property should be divided into six plots leaving 12 ½ cents for the purpose of road. It was also agreed that these plots have to be sold to different persons as identified by the plaintiff, and on recovery of the sale consideration from them, it has got to be paid to the defendant, and it was to be adjusted towards the balance of sale consideration as found in the agreement. Accordingly, it was divided into six plots. In respect of plot Nos.I, II, III and IV, sale deeds were executed by the defendant by getting necessary consideration from the third parties, and thus, there was a balance of only Rs.7,600/-. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to make the said payment. Apart from that, despite the notice and telegraphic message expressing his willingness, the defendant was evading. Under the circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that it was true that there was an agreement between the parties; but, the time was the essence of the contract; that the plaintiff should make the payment of balance of consideration on or before 5. 1980 and get the sale deed executed in his favour; but, he has not done so; that apart from that, there was no agreement between them by which it has got to be divided into plots; that considering the circumstances, though they were divided into six plots, the defendant executed the sale deeds in respect of plot Nos.I, II, III and IV; that when the payment was not made, there was a panchayat convened; that as per the decision taken in the panchayat, the defendant was to take the rest of the two plots namely plot Nos.V and VI, and he must execute the sale deeds in respect of the others; that accordingly, it was done; that under the circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief on these grounds, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed necessary issues, tried the suit and granted the relief. The aggrieved defendant took it on appeal, whereby the judgment of the trial Court was reversed, and the suit was dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff took up the matter on appeal before this Court.

5. Pending the appeal, the sole appellant died in the year 1999. No steps have been taken to add the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. Now, a petition has been filed by a person in CMP No.9164 of 2006 to implead him as appellant in the appeal contending that the agreement holder, who was the original plaintiff, has sold the property to one Manickam; that on his death, the legal representatives of the said Manickam have sold the property to the proposed party, who is to be impleaded, and hence, the appeal has got to be heard by impleading him as appellant.

.6. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the proposed party. He would submit that originally, there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff; that following the same, there was a sale deed executed by him in favour of one Manickam; that the legal representatives, on his death, have conveyed the property to the proposed party, and thus, he is continuing the right to get the relief. Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, admittedly, there was a