This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1992 in O.S.No.50 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, PMT District.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively and precisely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint, could be portrayed thus:

The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into the agreement to sell as per Ex.A.1 dated 20.03.1989, whereby the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former the suit immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the former to the latter as advance. The time stipulated was upto 13.05.1989. Owing to factors beyond the plaintiffs control, the sale deed could not be got executed in his favour and thereupon, by mutual agreement, time was got extended upto 13.07.1989. On 13.07.1989, the plaintiff was present at the Sub-Registrars Office concerned, but the first defendant did not turn up and thereby the sale deed could not be got executed in favour of the plaintiff. Whereupon, a telegram was sent to the first defendant explaining his position, it was replied otherwise as though the plaintiff committed default. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

4. Per contra, denying and disputing, challenging and impugning the allegations/averments, the first defendant filed the refutatory written statement; the gist and kernel of it, could be detailed thus:

The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As a concession, time was extended upto 13.07.1989. It was specifically mentioned therein that on 13.07.1989 at 11.00 a.m., the plaintiff should make himself available with the requisite stamp papers for the purpose of getting the sale deed executed and also with the remaining part of the sale consideration, so to say, the sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only). The first defendant, as such, indicated that time was the essence of the contract and in the event of the plaintiff failing to get the sale deed executed as observed supra, the contract shall stand cancelled. Despite such categorical expression from the first defendants side, the plaintiff who was really having no sufficient money as well as the financial wherewithal to get the sale deed executed in his favour, failed to appear at the Sub-Registrars Office concerned on 13.07.1989. Whereupon, the first defendant cancelled the agreement by sending necessary communication to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff executed the power deed in favour of one Natarajan to sell the suit property. Accordingly, there was no merit in the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

6. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.29 were marked. The first defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked.

7. Ultimately, the trial Court found that time was essence of the contract and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the original suit.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred this appeal on the following main grounds among others:

(i) The judgment and decree of the trial Court are against law and the weight of evidence. Time was not the essence of the contract. However, the trial Court assumed the contrary as though time was the essence of the contract and dismissed the suit. On 13.07.1989, even though the plaintiff was very much present with the remaining part of the sale consideration and also ready to purchase the stamp papers, nevertheless the first defendant did not appear and this fact was ignored by the trial Court.

(ii) T