LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-33

A GUNASEKARAN Vs. K DAMAYANTHI

Decided On July 07, 2008
A. GUNASEKARAN Appellant
V/S
K. DAMAYANTHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.249 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/plaintiff, as put forth before the Court below, is, as under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in law in dismissing the suit for specific performance in respect of sale agreement dated 03.05.1987, particularly when the sale agreement is admitted and the contract sought to be enforced is a valid one. He also contended that the Court below failed to appreciate that it is well settled law that in respect of sale of immovable property the ordinary presumption is "time is not the essence of the contract". According to the learned counsel, the Court below ought to have seen that the question of hardship must be judged as on the date of the contract and not on the subsequent events, the hardship should be one collateral to the contract and not in relation to a term of the contract such as quantum of consideration.