S MARUTHAI Vs. PADMINI RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of a learned single Judge refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract for sale of an immovable property.

(2.) DEFENDANT/respondent is the owner of the suit property at No. 11, Harrington Road, Madras. She entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 12.9.1979 to sell that property for a consideration of Rs. 3,80,000/- and received an advance of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff. It is said, however, by the plaintiff/appellate that it was agreed that the plaintiff would continue to prosecute the suits for eviction of some tenants which suits were pending on the date of the agreement and for that purpose, the plaintiff/appellant could get his name substituted in place of the name of the defendant/respondent. The agreement stipulated that the sale would be completed within six months from the date of the agreement.

(3.) WE have extracted from the judgment of the trial court, most of the discussion on the evidence of the witnesses and the case of the parties, for no serious challenge has been made before us as to the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court. WE can safely proceed, it is so stated at the Bar, on the basis of the analysis of the evidence of the trial court. What is urged on behalf of the appellant before us, however, is that once it is found that time is not the essence of the contract and according to him it has to be so found, for, in such agreements, time is invariably not the essence of the contract, on facts as above it is not possible to say that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.