The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time was not considered the essence of the contract, and the plaintiff had not performed his part of the contract.

This appeal has been directed against the judgment in O.S.No.16 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2.The short facts of the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The first defendant is the owner of the property schedule to the plaint. He had purchased the same under the sale deed dated 13. 1976 under Document No.82/76 of Neravy Sub-Registrars Officer at T.R. Pattinam. On 22. 1992 the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/-. Accordingly, a sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant, power of attorney agent of the first defendant. On the date of sale agreement itself the plaintiff had paid Rs.50,000/-. The said amount was deposited in the Savings Bank account of the defendant with Indian Overseas Bank, Karaikal. Time for performance of the sale was initially set at six months from the date of agreement. Soon after the agreement the first defendant left for Singapore, without informing the plaintiff of the probable date of his return. However, he had appointed the second defendant, his brother-in-law, as his general power of attorney to receive the balance of sale consideration before the plaintiff. As per the contract of sale, the defendants should execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in the name of his nominee. There was no stipulation that the sale deed should be executed by the power agent of the first defendant. The period stipulated ie., six months for executing the sale deed has come to an end and the first defendant was out of India, the plaintiff agreed to release another payment of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.50,000/-paid on the date of agreement. This offer was made to show that he was ready to have the sale concluded and that the sale cannot be concluded in the absence of the 1st defendant himself. The plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/-on 28. 1994 in cash and the second defendant as power agent has received it. The first defendant had not returned to India even by 110. 1994. The power agent demanded from the plaintiff another sum of Rs.50,000/-as further part payment towards sale consideration. The said sum of Rs.50,000/-was also paid by the plaintiff to the second defendant, who is the power of attorney of D1. The said amount was received by D2 to be invested in the account of D1 to be kept in Pondichery State Co-operative Bank Ltd. As there was no definite information of the 1st defendant returning to India, the plaintiff also went abroad. After the plaintiff left for France, the 1st defendant arrived India and he became tempted as there was higher offers for his property he became suddenly sentimental and went about telling the plaintiffs relatives that he did not want to sell away his only property. The notice issued by the first defendant was returned since at that time the plaintiff was in abroad. The plaintiff came to India to attend the marriage of his cousin and a notice dated 12. 1994 was received by the plaintiff from the first defendant. Even in the notice the first defendant had admitted that he had received through his power of attorney agent (D2) two part payments of Rs.50,000/- each, but he would allege that his power of attorney agent (D2) has not behaved well. The first defendant had offered to return a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-and would state that the remaining Rs.50,000/- the plaintiff has to forego. The plaintiff immediately replied stating that he is always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. As there was no response from the defendants, the plaintiff left India to France in January-1995. The first defendant did not return to India till December-1995. The second defendant has failed to authorize D1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the property scheduled to the agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and D1 on behalf of D2. The plaintiff is having means to pay the balance of sale con