The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.249 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, as put forth before the Court below, is, as under:

.(a) The suit property belongs to the respondent/defendant. She agreed to sell the same to the appellant at the rate of Rs.10/-per square feet, fixing the sale price tentatively at Rs.40,100/- and for the said sale consideration, an agreement of sale was written between the appellant and the respondent on 03.05.1987; on the same day, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given to the respondent as advance. As per the sale agreement, the sale has to be completed before the end of Tamil month Aavani 1987. When the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/-in the month of August 1987, the appellant paid the same on 22.08.1987. According to the appellant, he has to pay Rs.30,100/-towards the balance sale consideration and he is having sufficient money with him and is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

.(b) On 17.04.1989, the appellant issued a notice through his counsel to the respondent demanding her to execute the sale deed in his favour at her cost on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,100/-; on receipt of the registered notice, the respondent issued a reply notice, admitting the receipt of a sum of Rs.10,000/-as advance and alleging that she had sent a notice to the appellant on 27.02.1988. According to the appellant, no such notice was either tendered or served on him.

.(c) Since the respondent did not come forward to complete the sale, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.249 of 1990 for a direction to the respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour for Rs.40,100/- receiving the balance of Rs.30,100/- and put him in possession of the property, failing which, direct an officer to perform the said part of the execution of the sale deed on behalf of the respondent in favour of the appellant and put the appellant in possession thereof.

3. The respondent in her written statement has denied the averment of the appellant that he is always willing and ready to execute the sale deed. According to her, she entered into a contract for sale of the suit property under an agreement dated 03.05.1987 with the appellant as she was having a pressing need for money at that time; her sons were young and she had to incur heavy expenditure for their education and her husband was also unemployed then. Since the appellant had not performed his part of the contract as per the terms and conditions embodied in the agreement dated 03.05.1987, the respondent had sent a notice on 27.02.1988 to the appellant asking him to execute the sale by paying the balance amount of Rs.34,180/- within a period of 15 days from the date of notice. She had further notified the appellant that the original document of Sale Deed dated 01.07.1981 should be returned to her in the event of his not complying with the demand made in the notice dated 27.02.1988.

3a. According to the respondent, the period fixed in the agreement had expired and the claim is barred by time, as time was made the essence of contract and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. She has further stated that she is an illiterate woman, doing coolie work and leading a hard life and the suit property is the only property which she possesses, which she banks for putting up a dwelling shelter. It is her further case that if the suit property is knocked away by the appellant, then she will be in great difficulties.

4. The Trial Court on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysis of the material records, framed issues and dismissed the suit in favour of the respondent, thereby directing the respondent to pay the advance amount of Rs.10,000/-to the appellant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of suit till the date