JAGANNATHA PADAYACHI Vs. ELUMALAI AND AZHAGAPPA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST defendant in O.S. 181 of 1995 on the file of the FIRST Additional District Munsif s Court, Ulundurpet is the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the case could be summarised thus: Second defendant is the father of plaintiff. Second defendant along with his minor children including plaintiff, sold the plaint property as per Ex. A1. dated 28.1.1982 to the appellant, who is first defendant. On the same date, Ex. A2, agreement or reconveyance was also executed. THE agreement of reconveyance was in favour of plaintiff. It is provided in Ex. A2 that in case entire consideration in Ex. A1 is paid within a period of five years from that date, the property will be reconveyed. A token advance of Rs. 10/-was also paid and first defendant agreed to reconvey the property on receipt of balance sale consideration.

(3.) SINCE caveat was entered, I heard the Second Appeal at the admission stage itself, During the Course of arguments, the following substantial questions of law were also raised by appellant's counsel and respondent's counsel also answered the same. a) Whether the time is not essence of contract in agreement of reconveyance and if so, what is the consequence one the time has expired" b) Even if suit is not barred by limitation, whether plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance if time is the essence of contract" Whether there is delay or laches on the part of plaintiff" c) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in seeking aside the discretion exercised by trial Court, revising specific performance"