The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time stipulated in a sale agreement may not be considered an essence of the contract if it is subject to the release of impounded documents. Additionally, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the agreement for property in which the seller has no title is unenforceable.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.12.2000 made in A.S.No.41 of 2000, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.1999, made in O.S.No.424 of 1993, on the file of Sub Judge, Karur).

1. Aggrieved over the reversal finding of the first appellate Court allowing the appeal, thereby setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed for specific performance, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to file this Second Appeal, are as follows:- In an agreement dated 24.01.1992, the defendants agreed to sell the property measuring to an extent of 6 cents, out of 48 cents, for a total consideration of Rs.81,000/- (Rupees Eighty One Thousand only), which is shown as 'A' schedule in the plaint and received a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as advance. As the original documents of the property was impounded under Section 47 (A) of the Stamp Act, the defendants agreed to hand over the same within a period of 5 months and complete the sale. In respect of second schedule of the property, there is no consideration fixed in the agreement. Having agreed to hand over the original documents, which was impounded under Section 47 (A) of the Stamp Act, the defendants have not taken any steps to receive the document from the concerned department. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Despite the request made by the plaintiff, the defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed in time. Thereafter, the defendants were demanding excess amount from the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff was not amenable for the same. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants have received the original document from the Revenue Department. However, they have not informed the same to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

4. Admitting the execution of the suit agreement on 24.01.1992, it is the contention of the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff is only a name lender. On the date of the agreement one Kaliappan and Karuppiah approached the defendants to purchase the entire extent of 48 cents, in the suit survey field and entered into two agreements. One agreement was executed in favour of one Kalimuthu and Karuppiah for an extent of 42 cents and in respect of remaining 6 cents, an agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is his further contention that after the receipt of the original documents, which was impounded under Section 47 (A) of the Stamp Act, the same was informed to Karuppiah and the xerox copy of the document was also handed over to the said Karuppiah and promised to register the sale deed in their favour within a week. Since, they have not turned up, a legal notice was issued to them on 27.03.1993. In reply, the said Karrupia and Kalimuth requested further two months time to register the sale. Thereafter, in the mediation, in the presence of one Vadivel, they have given up the contract. The plaintiff is none other than the son in law of the said Karuppiah. The plaintiff is fully aware of all these facts, however, he has not chosen to issue any notice prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit at the instigation of his father-in-law Karuppiah. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court, based on the above pleadings framed the following issues:

1. Whether it is true that the defendants have no sale agreement with the plaintiff and they have not received any amount as advance?

2. Whether the time limit is the essence of sale agreement of the suit property?

3. Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entit