In a contract for sale of immovable property, time can be made of the essence of the contract by the parties' express agreement or by implication from the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract.

1. The defendant in O.S.No. 1249 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, is the appellant in the above appeal. She filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.

2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint are briefly narrated hereunder:

The suit property is a wet land of an extent of 27 cents, belongs to the defendant. She agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff for a price of Rs. 24,300. The agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the contracting parties. It is dated 5.10.1979 and on the date of the agreement Rs. 8000 was paid as advance. It is further averred that the agreement stipulates that the sale was to be completed within a period of about three months. Again it was extended upto 15th June, 1980. Though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the defendant was evading. So, the plaintiff sent two letters calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance of the price. Since it had no effect, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement, wherein she had admitted the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of Rs. 8,000. She however contends that it was the plaintiff, who committed the breach of contract and that she could not raise the money for payment of balance of sale price. The land in question is conveyed for construction of buildings. The value was increasing day by day. Having regard to this fact and other surrounding circumstances, time was made of the essence of the contract. This would be evident from the fact of time having been extended from 16.3.1980 for a period of three months. It is further averred that the plaintiff did not send any letters to the defendant and she was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Having found that she could not complete the transaction, the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned it and also waived her rights if any arising under the agreement. So, the defendant expending large sums of money arranged to shift telegraph post standing in the land and this has enhanced the market value of the land considerably. So, it is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit for specific performance with a view to enrich herself at the expense of the defendant. With these averments, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.5 in support of her case. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and she has also examined one Narayanan as D.W.2 apart from marking Ex. B.1 in support of her defence. Through witness Exs.X1 to X.3 were marked. The learned Subordinate Judge after framing necessary issues and in the light of the evidence available on record, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

5. Against the decree of the trial Court, the aggrieved defendant filed appeal A.S.No.90 of 1982 before the District Court, Madurai. The learned First Additional District Judge, Madurai, after framing necessary points for consideration and after reassessing the evidence, confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

6. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the defendant filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:

“Whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has established that she has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.”

7. Mr.T. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellant, in the light of the substantial question of law framed earlier raised the following submissions : (1) Normally in matters relating to immovable property time is not the essence of the contract, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the terms agreed by both the parties, time in the essence of the contract ; and

(2) There was no readiness or willingness on the part of the