The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time to be entitled to specific performance.

1. The suit has been laid for specific performance in respect of the agreement for sale dated 24.10.2007.

2. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6, who are the owners of the suit property, offered to sell the same for consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- to the plaintiff, who is also a tenant, for commercial purposes, of a portion of the suit property in the ground floor. The defendants were paid an advance of Rs.5,10,101/- on the date of the agreement and a period of 3 months was fixed for performance of the contract. The sale agreement also contemplated delivery of vacant possession of the first floor of the premises and it was also agreed that all entrances/ways to the adjacent building from the first floor of the suit property should be closed by the vendors. The plaintiff would further contend that though the defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6, who are the brothers had agreed to get the signature of the 4th defendant in the suit agreement or to get an authority from the 4th defendant for sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff, however, failed to keep up their promise and the 1st defendant being the eldest, agreed to obtain the signature of the 4th defendant, at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Believing the words of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff did not press hard for the 1st defendant signing the sale agreement. Since the defendants did not come forward to comply with the terms of the contract, viz. to evict the tenant in the first floor and to close the ways and entrances to the adjacent building, the plaintiff issued a notice on 19.02.2008 calling upon the defendants to comply with the terms of the agreement and to come forward to execute the sale deed within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendants 1,2,3,5 and 6 sent a reply on 22.02.2008, contending that the plaintiff has not come forward to pay the balance of sale consideration within the time stipulated under the agreement dated 24.10.2007, despite the fact that the defendants have taken steps to comply with Clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement of sale. It is also claimed in the said notice that the plaintiff only gave false dates and assurances to pay the balance of sale consideration. A specific plea was taken to the effect that the plaintiff had no wherewithal to pay the balance of sale consideration. In the reply notice further claimed that in view of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the terms of the agreement, the defendants called upon the plaintiff to receive a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- after deducting 25% from and out of the said advance amount as per the Clause 8 of the said agreement and cancel the sale agreement within three days from the receipt of reply notice. A demand draft for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 22.02.2008 was also enclosed with the said reply notice. The plaintiff sent a re-joinder to the said reply on 26.02.2008, returning the demand draft. Soon thereafter, the present suit came to be filed on 03.03.2008 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24.10.2007. Pending the said suit the defendants 1 to 6 sold the suit property to the defendants 7 and 8 on 30.05.2008. Thus, the defendants 7 and 8 were impleaded in the suit by an order of this Court, dated 22.04.2016.

3. The defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have filed a written statement contending as follows. The execution of sale agreement and the receipt of advance of Rs.5,10,101/- was admitted. According to the defendants, time is the essence of the contract as per the agreement dated 24.10.2007. They would contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance as he has not come forward to pay the balance consideration within the time stipulated under Ex.P1, and inasmuch as Ex.P1 provides for the consequences of default on part of either of the parties, the plaintiff cannot seek specific performance after the expiry of time fixed under the agreement dated 24.10.2007. It is also contended