T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff challenges the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of contract of sale in the second appeal. The Courts below have concurrently held that in the contract, time is construed to be the essence. The contract was dated 30-11-1989 and the suit was filed on 3-12-1993. For want of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed by the Courts below on this ground. ( 2 ) I have perused the true copy of the agreement furnished to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The relevant clause is extracted below:"on the contrary, if you fail to purchase schedule lands in absolute sale when I am willing and ready to act according to this agreement, within the time limit of five months under this agreement, this agreement stands cancelled after the expiry of that period and I will forfeit the Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only); that I have received from you as the advance amount today". ( 3 ) A reading of this clause clearly shows that the party intended time to be the essence of the contract. Reliance was placed by the Counsel for the respondent in Smt. Chand Rani (since deceased) by L. Rs v Smt. Kamal Rani (since deceased) by L. Rs, on the following passage:"in the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are: (1) from the express terms of the contract; (2) from the nature of the property; and (3) from the surrounding circumstances, for example; the object of making the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are: (1) from the express terms of the contract; (2) from the nature of the property; and (3) from the surrounding circumstances, for example; the object of making the contract. Where in an agreement to sell the immovable property it was stipulated that amount in part was to be paid within 10 days of the execution of the agreement and the balance has to be paid at the time of registration of deed and it was agreed that the vendor would redeem the property which was mortgaged and also obtain the income-tax clearance certificate and the word 'only' was used twice i. e. , to qualify the amount and to qualify the period of payment of such amount i. e. , ten days, it was held that the intention of the parties was to make time as essence of contract and in such case, when the purchaser was not ready and willing to pay the amount in part as agreed, before delivery of possession and income-tax clearance certificate and conditions of the agreement and the purchaser was not entitled to the specific performance of contract". ( 4 ) A Division Bench ruling of this Court in Saraswathi Ammal v V. C. Lingam and Another, was also relied upon and the following passage is also referred to:"as to the time being the essence of the contract, is a matter of intention of the parties to the contract evidenced by express stipulations or by circumstances which are sufficiently strong to displace ordinary presumption that in contract for sale of land stipulation as to time is not of essence; however by an appropriate notice, one of the parties may notify the other making the time, the essence of contract, subsequently. The plaintiff seeking specific performance must "plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract continuously between the date of the contract and the date of hearing of the suit". To prove himself ready and willing, a purchaser has not necessarily to produce the money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. To prove himself ready and willing, a purchaser has not necessarily to produce the money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. There is no authority for the proposition that the purchaser's readiness and willingness has to be inferred by his repeated assertion of those magic words. It is essentially a question of fact to be answered from the material on record read with the proved circumstances of the case". ( 5 ) IN view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court and also taking into consideration the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I feel there is no merit in the second appeal. No question of law is involved. The second appeal is dismissed. The appellant is entitled to refund of the money paid by him together with 12% interest from the date of payment of advance till the amount is paid back. A decree shall follow to this effect from this Court and till the payment is made, there shall be a charge on the property. --- *** --- .