M. MUNUSAMY Vs. N. SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal suit is instituted against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.128 of 2010 dated 11.03.2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal suit and the respondent is the defendant. The suit was instituted by the appellant mainly on the ground that the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.13,30,000/- on 31.08.2007 by way of written sale agreement. On the date of agreement, the defendants had received an advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and the same has been endorsed in the sale agreement. The time for the execution of the sale deed is fixed as 90 days and that ended on 28.11.2007. The contention of the appellant/plaintiff is that he was waiting for the registration of sale deed. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants are evading to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff has not stated all along that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and ready to pay the balance sale consideration, as per the suit sale agreement. In view of the fact that the defendants had not expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, the suit came to be instituted for specific performance.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement disputed the contention as well as averments made in the plaint by stating that the parties had entered into a contract of sale on 31.08.2007 and the sale consideration was Rs.13,30,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was received. Time was the essence of the contract as the agreement itself states that 90 days is fixed for completion of the contract. It is contended that the defendants are always ready and willing to preform their part of the contract by receiving the balance sale consideration and to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within a stipulated time of 90 days. Thus, the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract and the time is the essence of the contract, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of specific performance.