SRINIVASAN Vs. KUMARASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) DEFENDANTS are the Appellants herein. The Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments.

(3.) IT is well settled that time is not the essence of the contract for immovable property. Even assuming that before expiry of the contract, notice was not given by the Plaintiff about his willingness, but subsequent thereto, notices were given showing his willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Courts below have given concurrent findings about the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved.