The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific performance of an agreement of sale may be justified by the obligation to perform certain actions beyond the payment of consideration, and the failure to perform such actions can lead to the frustration of the agreement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.27 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.137 of 1986 dated 30.11.1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore.)

1. The 6th defendant in O.S. No. 137 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore is the appellant herein.

2. O.S. No. 137 of 1986 had been filed by G.R. Ethiraj, whose legal representatives are the 3rd to 7th respondents in the second appeal, originally against Padmavathi Ammal, who died pending the suit and whose legal representatives had been impleaded as 4th and 5th defendants, Amsaveni and Saroja, the 1st and 2nd respondents in the second appeal, and against T.M. Govindasami Mudaliar, who also died pending the suit, without leaving behind any legal representative and against T.M. Thiruvengada Mudaliar, whose wife was later impleaded as the 6th defendant, the appellant herein, seeking performance of an agreement of sale dated 06.06.1983 with respect to the property described in the ‘A’ Schedule to the plaintiff, namely, 2.56 ¾ acres of land in S. Nos. 714/59, 714/51 and 714./46 in Katpadi, Vellore District.

3. By judgment dated 30.11.1998, the learned Sub Judge, Vellore, decreed the suit, but without costs, and directed specific performance of the agreement by the defendants by executing sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of two months, and further directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month.

4. The 6th defendant, Janakiammal/appellant in the second appeal, then filed A.S. No. 27 of 1999 before the Principal District Court, Vellore. The plaintiff, G.R. Ethiraj, filed a cross appeal against denial of costs being granted. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the plaintiff, G.R. Ethiraj died and his legal representatives had been brought on record. By judgment dated 21.12.2001, the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, dismissed the appeal suit with costs, and confirmed the decree passed in O.S. No. 137 of 1986. The cross appeal was also allowed.

5. Questioning the said judgment, the 6th defendant Janakiammal then filed the present second appeal. Pending the appeal, she died and her legal representative had been impleaded as the 2nd appellant. The 2nd respondent, Saroja, who was the 5th defendant in the suit also died. By a memo06.07.2018, she was given up, but later by order dated 02.08.2019, that was withdrawn. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. When time was stipulated in the original agreement for enforcement of contract, still is the learned Principal District Judge right in holding that time is not the essence of the contract ?

2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract when admittedly the agreement came to be executed in 1983 and the payment was made in court in 1998 after the grant of decree ? and

3. When the plaintiff became a power agent of the plaintiff subsequent to the execution of the agreement of sale, is the learned Judge right in holding that the agreement of sale is still subsisting ?”

O.S. No. 137 of 1986 (Sub Court, Vellore):

6. The suit had been filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 06.06.1983 entered into by the 1st defendant with the plaintiff, with respect to the vacant lands measuring 2.56 ¾ acres of land in S. Nos. 714/59, 714/51 and 714./46 in Katpadi, Vellore District. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were the owners of the lands. The total consideration was determined at Rs.96,375/- and an advance of Rs.6,000/- had been paid. The balance had to be paid within 9 months, on or before 06.03.1984. It was however claimed by the plaintiff that time was not the essence of the agreement. It was further stated that the parent title documents of the property were also handed over to the plaintiff. On 08.06.1983, the plaintiff w