1. In this second appeal, the plaintiffs have impugned the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi.

2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal;-

“Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in dismissing the suit laid by the plaintiffs including the alternative prayer for refund of advance amount are based upon perverse findings and conclusions and misdirected against the evidence on record”

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for specific performance or in the alternative for the refund of the advance amount.

4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and the defendant through his power of attorney agent had executed the sale agreement dated 08.05.2007, as regards the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-. It could be seen that as per the said sale agreement marked as Ex.A1, the power of attorney agent of the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs and accordingly, it is also found that the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- as advance towards the sale consideration as agreed to and it is also found that the parties have agreed that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- should be paid by the plaintiffs on or before 31.08.2007 and it is also found that the defendant should measure the suit property individually to the plaintiffs and also prepare the necessary documents for the due execution of the sale deed and as regards the above fact of the specific time having been fixed between the parties concerned to complete the sale transaction i.e. on or before 31.08.2007, there is no issue.

5. Now, as regards the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to complete the sale transaction, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they were ready from the inception and according to them, inasmuch as the defendant had not come forward to measure the suit property individually to the plaintiffs and on the other hand postponing the sale transaction on some pretext or the other with a view to sell the suit property at a higher price, it is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs left with no other alternative issued a notice dated 24.06.2008 to the defendant calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction. However, it is stated that to the above said notice, the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they have been necessitated to lay the suit for specific performance.

6. The case of the plaintiffs that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as per Ex.A1 has been vehemently disputed by the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiffs have not been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the sale agreement and it is also stated that the time is essence of the contract and therefore, it is the case of the defendant that the sale agreement got rescinded and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the relief of specific performance. It is also pleaded by the defendant that the suit property, as such, had been measured for the plaintiffs and the parties have agreed to purchase the undivided extent in the suit survey number and it is also pleaded that the copies of the original deeds pertaining to the suit property have already been furnished to the plaintiffs and only after the plaintiffs having become satisfied with the title of the suit property, they had entered into the sale transaction with the defendant and therefore, it is contended that only on the failure to the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, as per the sale agreement, the transaction could not be gone through