JUDGMENT:

1. The appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment dated 04.11.2009 in O.S. No.16 of 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore (for short, ‘trial court’).

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff's claims in the plaint are summarized as follows: (a) The defendant agreed to sell the schedule property for Rs.19,00,000/- to the plaintiff. An advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made, and a sale agreement was executed on 04.03.2004. The terms of the agreement stipulated that the defendant would ensure the eviction of tenants from the ground floor shop rooms, while the plaintiff would be responsible for evicting the tenant on the first floor. After demolishing the entire house, the plaintiff was ready to pay the sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant At the time of registration, agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the defendant failed to take any action to evict the three shop room tenants or vacate the portion of the house in their possession, hindering the execution of a registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. The first-floor tenant provided conflicting statements regarding her obligation to vacate the premises. In an abundance of caution, the plaintiff informed the defendant about this on 24.06.2004. In response, the defendant agreed to extend the time for executing the registered sale deed and handed over the title deeds. Consequently, an endorsement was made on the first and third pages of the agreement on the same date, extending the deadline until 20.07.2004.

(b) Despite the agreement, the defendant failed to appear for the execution of a registered sale deed. The plaintiff sent a notice urging the defendant to collect the remaining sale consideration and execute the deed, which the defendant received and responded to, stating that the sale agreement dated 04.03.2004 had been canceled due to the plaintiff's failure to fulfill his contractual obligations. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent another notice on 26.10.2005, demanding the defendant to fulfill his contractual obligations and execute a registered sale deed. In reply, the defendant reiterated their previous stance in a letter dated 16.11.2005. The plaintiff asserts his readiness and willingness to fulfill his part of the contract, while the defendant failed to fulfill his part of the contract.

4. In the written statement, the defendant refuted the allegations made in the plaint. He admitted to executing the sale agreement and receiving an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. However, he contended that the plaintiff was not pre- pared and willing to fulfill his contractual obligations. According to the terms of the agreement, it was the plaintiff's responsibility to evict the first-floor tenant. Nonetheless, the plaintiff failed to take any action to remove the said tenant, impeding the registra- tion of a regular sale deed in his favour. The defendant also in- formed the plaintiff about the first-floor tenant filing R.C.C. No.6/1988 with the Rent Controller, Gudur, before entering into the sale agreement and provided a copy of the court's order. The defendant urgently needed money to finance his daughter's wed- ding and, since the plaintiff failed to fulfill his contractual obliga- tions, the defendant had to arrange funds through interest to per- form the wedding. In May 2004, the defendant managed to evict the tenants occupying the ground floor. Despite making several demands for the payment of the remaining sale consideration and, the plaintiff did not respond positively. Due to the plaintiff's fail- ure to fulfill his obligations, including securing the balance sale consideration and evicting the first-floor tenant on time, the de-

fendant requested an extension of the deadline from 30.07.2004 to 20.07.2004 to r