JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated

30.08.2017, passed in O.S.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid.

2. The pleadings of the parties, as stated before the trial Court, are narrated as under:

2(a) The brief averments of the plaint are:- The defendant, who is the owner of the suit schedule property shown as four different extents totaling to Ac.3.75 cents, offered to sell the property and executed an agreement of sale on 16.06.2014 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.20,20,000/- out of total sale consideration agreed for Rs.89,00,000/-. The balance sale consideration of Rs.68,80,000/- has to be paid on or before 31.07.2014 as per the terms and conditions. There is a specific clause that the advance amount of Rs.20,20,000/- would be forfeited if registration is not done within the above said period. Though, the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the defendant is not coming forward and postponing the registration on some pretext or the other. The plaintiffs ultimately got issued legal notice, dated 25.08.2014, but there is no response from the defendant. The plaintiffs pray for specific performance or for the alternate relief of refund of advance sale consideration with interest @ 24% per annum from 16.06.2014 till the date of realization of the entire amount and for suit costs.

2(b) The defendant filed her written statement admitting the execution of suit sale agreement on 16.06.2014 for a total consideration of Rs.89,00,000/- and receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.20,20,000/- from the plaintiffs. However, it is her case that she is the owner of only part of extent of plaint schedule property, i.e., Ac.1.34 cents and Ac.0.54 cents in R.S.No.8/4 and 8/3 respectively and that for the remaining extents of suit schedule property, she is only a lessee of one Smt. Sitharavamma and Savithri. The plaintiffs, knowing fully well, got prepared the agreement of sale by including the leased property also and when she noticed the said defect, the plaintiffs agreed the mistake and promised to delete such property. The plaintiffs never came forward to perform their part of the contract within the stipulated time showing their readiness and willingness. In view of time stipulation of 45 days and forfeiture clause, the suit is liable to be dismissed and the defendant need not repay the advance amount taken from the plaintiffs. She got issued a reply to the legal notice on 09.09.2014 informing that it is a time bound contract. It was received by the 1st plaintiff, but it was not served on the 2nd plaintiff. After receiving the reply, the plaintif approached the defendant requesting to refund the advance amount. The defendant declined as she sustained heavy loss due to the act of the plaintiff. Though she eagerly waited to perform the contract within the stipulated time, as she entered into another time bound contract and paid advance of Rs.20,00,000/-, the plaintiff failed to do their part. The sale agreement was terminated on 31.07.2014 25 days after the termination, the plaintiffs issued legal notice, that too, only after the defendant gave a public notice in the daily newspaper. The defendant is entitled to counter claim. The defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

3. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of contract and as such the agreement stands cancelled due to their laches by forfeiting advance amount?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of contract?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for alternative relief of refund of advance amount?

(iv) To what relief?

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs 1 to

3 were examined and exhibits B1 to B5 were marked.

5. After hearing both the parties, the trial