THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.40 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 02.12.2009, passed in O.S.No.115 of 2005 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the defendant offered to sell their property to an extent of Ac.01-22 guntas and that the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,07,500/-, out of which she has paid Rs.2 Lakhs i.e. Rs.99,000/- was paid by cash and Rs.1,01,000/- through post dated cheque bearing No.0148688, dated 27.11.2003 bearing No.0148688, dated 27.11.2003 drawn on Andhra Bank, BDI Branch, Hyderabad and that the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,07,500/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration and an agreement of sale was drafted to that effect. It is her case that the terms of agreement of sale were that within three months i.e. by 12.03.2004, the contract should be concluded for which the plaintiff shall arrange for balance sale consideration and the defendant shall get the original documents and link documents and also shall make the survey conducted over the land and give out the correct measurements but the defendants have failed to do their part of contract i.e. they failed to get the land surveyed and measured and thus, she got issued a notice on 03.03.2004 expressing her readiness and willingness and asking the defendant to produce necessary documents and to survey the land without any further delay. The defendant has received the notice and given a reply making all false allegations and that they would like to execute the sale deed and stated that she neither offered to pay the balance sale consideration amount nor she approached them for registration of sale deed. The defendant pointed out that the time is the essence of contract i.e. within three months the contract should be executed but in fact the plaintiff has been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and it is the defendant who did not cooperate. The defendant agreed to register the sale deed in the name of plaintiff and in the name of husband of plaintiff after obtaining ORC in respect of part of property covered by the agreement in the name of the husband of plaintiff. The defendant got the ORC in the month of May, 2004 and later on the defendant has handed over that copy of the ORC to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff states that the defendant has wantonly delayed the process and that even after obtaining the ORC they failed to come forward for executing the sale deed. It is her further case that though she was ready and willing at all times to get the sale deed executed, the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and therefore, getting vexed with the attitude of the defendant, she filed the suit.

4. The defendant has filed written statement denying the averments of plaint. He admitted the execution of agreement of sale but they contended that the time is the essence of contract and that it was clearly mentioned in the agreement of sale that within three months i.e. by 12.03.2004 the sale deed has to be executed on payment of balance sale consideration and that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration. It is further contended that he has already given copies of all the relevant documents to the plaintiff and that there were no latches on his part. It is his contention that the plaintiff was not ready with the balance sale consideration and she never came forward for getting the sale deed registered and