K SURYANARAYANA REDDY Vs. C CHELLAYYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit is laid for specific Performance of agreement to sell dated 6-9-1976 executed by the defendant.

(2.) The plaint averments are that under the agreement the house property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 30,000/- and on the date of agreement Rs. 5,000/- was paid and the balance is payable on 31-12-1976. But, however, the time is extended on 2-8-1977 till 1-9-1977 on which date an additional sum of Rs. 9,000/- was paid and the defendant was postponing the execution of the sale deed as he has not paid the instalments due to the building society and obtained the sale deed and he also kept quiet without giving any reply to the suit notice dated 3-7-1980 and hence the suit. The defence is that the time is the essence of the contract. In the first instance it was agreed that the amount should be paid by 31-12-1976 but it was extended with an endorsement on the suit agreement on 2-8-1977 extending the time till 1-9-1977, but even then the plaintiff committed default and the agreement was cancelled by notice dated 2-9-1977, Ex. B-4, but the time was however extended under Ex. B-8 notice issued by the defendant on 1-11-1977 till 1-12-1977 and hence the agreement stood cancelled and the plaintiff lost the opportunity to enforce the contract. The written statement was amended further on 28-12-1981 adding para. 3-A stating that the plaintiff is guilty of serious laches and deliberate and wilful default and abnormal rise in the market value of the price disentitle him to enforce the contract.

(3.) This is refuted by the plaintiff by filing a rejoinder. On this controversy the trial Court framed two issues apart from issue No. 3 relating to relief. But considering the evidence and on framing three separate points as found in para. 8, the trial Court held that the agreement is not void and unenforceable in view of the conditions of hire purchase agreement, and though time is made the essence of the contract the defendant has not avoided the contract as per law and hence the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell and directed him to pay the balance of the amount due under the agreement and decreed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree the present appeal is filed by the defendant.