IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.10.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA A.S.No.337 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 J.Chandrasekar ...Plaintiff/

Appellant -Vs-

1.N.Gandhimathi

2.N.Gowtham ...Defendants/

Respondents Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in O.S.No.474 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Krishna Pradeep For Respondents : No appearance

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.474 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.474 of 2011 for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale Deed dated 18.08.2006 and to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he entered into an Agreement of Sale with the husband of 1^st respondent on 18.08.2006. It is contended by the appellant that the husband of 1^st respondent agreed to sell the suit property namely an extent of 2 acres out of a larger extent of 4.64 acres in S.No.250 in Thudialur Village, Coimbatore Taluk. The Sale Agreement dated 18.08.2006 marked as Ex.A1 in the suit reveals that the appellant entered into an Agreement of Sale in respect of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- . It is seen that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance on the date of the agreement and agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration namely Rs.25,00,000/- within a period of six months from the date of the agreement. The agreement also contain the following clause which read as follows:

nkw;go 6 khj';fs; fhyf; bfLtpw;Fs; 1 “ ,yf;fkpl;lth; mtUila brytpy; icp tPjk; fpuak; braJ; bfhs;sj; jtwpdhy;. mjdhy; ,d;W 2 ,yf;fkpl;ltUf;Fr; brYj;jpa[s;s Kd;gzj; bjhifia ,He;J tplntzo; aJ/ mjJ; ld; ,e;jf; fpua xg;ge;jKk;

uj;jhfp tpLk;/

”

4. Though the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within a period of six months from the date of the agreement, it is admitted that the plaintiff did not pay the balance of sale consideration within the stipulated time as agreed under Ex.A1. However, the plaintiff pleaded that several payments were made to the husband of 1^st respondent on various dates. The endorsements which are marked as Exs.A2 to Ex.A5 indicate that the following amounts were paid by the plaintiff to the husband of 1^st respondent and the husband of 1^st respondent had agreed to extend the time whenever he received the payments except the last payment.

5. From the various endorsements, it is to be noted that the husband of the 1^st respondent signed below the endorsements which were marked as Exs.A2, A3, A4 and A5. The agreement under Ex.A1 contains two other endorsements which are not signed. However, it is seen that those endorsements were also relied upon before the Trial Court even in the absence of signature of the husband of the 1^st respondent.

6. Based on the endorsements made by the husband of 1^st respondent accepting further amounts from the plaintiff, it is contended by the plaintiff in the plaint that the parties never intended time as the essence of the contract as the husband of 1^st respondent himself extended the time on various occasions and finally extended the time up to 31.08.2009. However, it is admitted that the time was not extended beyond 31.08.2009. It is also contended by the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff demanded the husband of 1^st respo