K MAJEED Vs. PAPPA ALIAS MADURAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree rendered In a suit filed for specific performance which was dismissed and the plaintiff who lost his case before the trial Court is the appellant herein.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that on 9-7-1983 the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1) with the first defendant, who is the first respondent herein, for the purchase of suit property for a total consideration of Rs.66,500/- and on the date of agreement, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards advance of the sale consideration. Under the terms of the agreement, the deed of sale has to be executed within a period of 30 days. On 16-7-1983 the plaintiffhas paid a further advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- and it is his case that on the same date, namely, 16-7-1983, the period of agreement was extended for a further period of two months. The plaintiff has stated that after 16-7-1983 he requested the first defendant to complete the deed of sale, but the first defendant was postponing the execution of the deed of sale and hence, he filed the suit for specific performance. The second defendant was impleaded as a party on the basis that the first defendant was trying to dispose of the property in favour of the second defendant, but the second defendant has taken a stand that there was no such proposal for the purchase of the suit property from the first defendant.

(3.) The first defendant in her written statement has taken a stand that the time was the essence of the contract and the sale should be completed within a period of thirty days from the date of agreement. Her case was that even though on 16-7-1983, a sum of Rs, 5,000/- was received by the first defendant and an endorsement of acknowledgment (Ex.A-2) for the receipt of Rs. 5.000/- was made on the agreement of sale dated 9-7-1983, the extension of time for a period of two months from the date of payment of Rs. 5,000/- found in the endorsement was subsequently inserted and it would amount to material alteration in the agreement as there was no such agreement between the parties for the extension of time for completion of the contract by two months. The first defendant has also raised a plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial Court on the basis of evidence dismissed the suit and against the Judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred.