JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2017 made in O.S. No. 72 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.

1. The present Appeal Suit has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017 passed in O.S. No. 72 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.

2. The first appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of money of Rs. 22 lakhs with interest and for permanent injunction.

3. The plaint averments reveal that the suit properties belonged to the first appellant-defendant and the first appellant-defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs' father Mr. A.T. Velayudham at the rate of Rs. 51 lakhs and the Sale Agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs' father Mr. A.T. Velayudham and the first appellant-defendant on 26.11.2012.

4. The first appellant-defendant had received Rs. 20 lakhs towards advance. The time for Sale Deed was fixed as five months. As per the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement, Mr. A.T. Velayudham took possession of the suit property and spent Rs. 3 lakhs to promote the land for the purpose of converting the same into Housing Plots with the concurrence of the first appellant-defendant. Meanwhile, Mr. A.T. Velayudham died on 13.02.2014 in the motor accident.

5. The legal-heirs of the said deceased Mr. A.T. Velayudham were impleaded as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the first appellant-defendant to repay the balance amount of Rs. 23 lakhs and the first appellant-defendant repaid only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiffs.

6. Since the first appellant-defendant postponed the repayment of the balance amount, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the suit for recovery of money based on the Sale Agreement entered into between the father of the plaintiffs and the first appellant-defendant.

7. The first appellant-defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The Sale Agreement was denied and the sale consideration agreed between the parties were also denied. The possession handed over to the original plaintiff Mr. A.T. Velayudham was also denied by the first appellant-defendant.

8. It is contended by the defendants 2 to 5 that the plaintiffs' father had not paid Rs. 20 lakhs and on 26.04.2013 itself, the Sale Agreement got lapsed. The father of the plaintiffs Mr. A.T. Velayudham had not acted upon as per the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement and no notice was sent to the first appellant-defendant. Thus the plaintiffs have not taken any steps thereafter and thus the suit claim is to be rejected.

9. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money as claimed by him?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as claimed by him?

(3) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

10. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and One Mr.Raja and Mr. Thangavel were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the first appellant-defendant, the first appellant-defendant was examined as DW-1 and one Mr. Chinnasamy was examined as DW-2 and Ex.B-1 was marked on the side of the first appellant-defendant.

11. With reference to Issue No. 1, the Trial Court made a finding that the father of the plaintiffs Mr. A.T. Velayudham and the first appellant-defendant were very much alive when the period of five months for execution of the sale got lapsed. During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, the first appellant-defendant has not chosen to rescind the contract, since time was lapsed.

12. Accordingly, it is to be construed that the time is not an essence of contract. Thus the conduct of the parties can b