In contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is not considered the essence unless explicitly stated, allowing for specific performance despite delays.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, the defendant has preferred the appeal suit in A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and the plaintiff has preferred the Cross Objection in Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

4. The defendant in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, is the appellant in A.S.No.80 of 2015 and A.S.No.81 of 2015 and in the cross objection, the plaintiff is the cross objector.

5. The plaintiff's case is as follows:

Originally A and B schedule suit properties belonged to one Gothandapani, the father of the defendant. Gothandapani entered into a sale agreement in respect of the A schedule suit property with the plaintiff on 30.11.1984 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and also received an advance amount of Rs.8,000/-towards the sale consideration from the plaintiff. On 02.03.1985 the said Gothandapani also received the balance sale consideration of Rs.2000/- from the plaintiff. Gothandapani delivered the possession of the A schedule suit property on 30.11.1984 itself and thus the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A schedule suit property. Gothandapani was not able to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff due to legal difficulties under the Urban Land Celing Act. The defendant, after the death of his father and also on withdrawal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, promised to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the sale agreement dated 30.11.1984. The plaintiff also raised a brick built thatched hut in the A schedule suit property and lived there with her grandson. The ration card, voter Identity card, electricity documents also stand in the name of the plaintiff. The said Gothandapani also offered to sell the B schedule suit property to the plaintiff for a valid sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and to that effect, Gothandapani also entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 09.04.1987 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as advance on 09.04.1987 and 05.07.1988 respectively and to that effect, Gothandapani made endorsements. On 09.04.1987 Gothandapani also delivered possession of the B schedule suit property to the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is also in possession and enjoyment of the B schedule of suit property from 09.04.1987 onwards. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- and to perform her part of contract, Gothandapani was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed in respect of the B schedule suit property. After the death of Gothandapani, the defendant being the legal heir promised to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of A and B schedule properties but he was evading to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant expressing her willingness and readiness to pay the balance sale consideration in respect of A and B schedule suit properties as per the agreements but the defendant having acknowledged the receipt of the notice failed to issue any reply to the plaintiff. Though the time for execution of the sale deeds was fixed as three months and two months respectively in respect of A and B schedule suit properties from the date of the agreements dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 respectively, time was not essence of the contract since the plaintiff is in possession of the A and B schedule suit properties from the date of the sale agreements, hence, the suit was filed and pleaded to allow the suit.

6. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement and denied the allegations contained in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. T