The court emphasized the importance of proving means to raise funds, issuing legal notice within the stipulated time, and the court's power to enhance consideration in the interests of justice.

1. The defendant who suffered a decree for specific performance is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 15.12.2006 agreeing to convey the suit property for consideration of Rs. 6,35,000/-. An advance of Rs.35,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement and a period of four months was fixed for performance of the agreement. The time fixed under the agreement was extended up to 15.06.2007 on 02.04.2007 and there was a further extension up to 15.08.2007. Since the defendant did not execute the sale deed, despite demands made by the plaintiff, a legal notice came to be issued on 06.08.2007 by the plaintiff. The defendant sent a reply on 09.08.2007 claiming that time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated under the agreement. On receipt of the reply the plaintiff came forward with the present suit for specific performance.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the agreement itself was entered into since he needed money for performance of his daughter s marriage. Therefore, according to the defendant, it was agreed between the parties that time should be the essence of the contract. The defendant would contend that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the two extensions were granted only at the instance of the plaintiff. Despite the said extensions the plaintiff had not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration and take the sale deed. The defendant would also question the ability of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. The defendant had also pointed out that in and by the reply notice dated 09.08.2007 he had terminated the contract. On the above pleadings the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the above pleadings the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC-III) Coimbatore framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance and delivery of possession of the suit property?

(2) In the alternative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of advance amount with interest and charge over the suit property as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

4. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 and exhibits A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendant he was examined as DW-1 and one Ramesh was examined as DW-2. No documentary evidence was produced on the side of the defendant.

5. Upon a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge has concluded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The learned Trial Judge had also taken note of the oral evidence of the defendant as DW-1 as well as the contents of the documents namely, exhibits A-6 and A-8 which are bank statements to conclude that the plaintiff had enough resources to pay the balance of sale consideration.

6. On the above findings the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit for specific performance. The question of granting the alternative relief did not arise inasmuch as the main relief was granted. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant is on appeal.

7. The following points arise for determination in this appeal:

1. Whether the plaintiff has established that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout in terms of section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act?

2. Whether the parties have intended time to be the essence of the contract?

8. I have heard Mr. Srinath Sridevan the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Muthuraman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. Mr. Srinath Sridevan the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the plaintiff has not established that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Pointing out the plea of the defend