JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S. No.29 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, preferred this second appeal. 2. Originally, the suit was filed by Mathey Yakob and his wife Mathey Suvarthamma, for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. It was pleaded that they are the owners of the suit schedule property through an agreement of sale, dated 21-5-1975. During the pendency of the suit, both of them died and their legal representatives, the respondents herein, were brought on record. The sole defendant in O.S. No.29 of 1981 has filed the second appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. The respondents pleaded that the suit schedule property belongs to them and through an agreement of sale, dated 21-5-1975, Ex. B-1, it was agreed to be sold to the appellants for a consideration of Rs.1 0,500/-. An amount of Rs.2,000/- was said to have been paid and the possession of the land was delivered on the date of agreement itself. Subsequently, the appellants paid a sum of Rs.3,355/- on 5-1-1979. Alleging that the appellants did not pay the balance of consideration in spite of repeated demands, the respondents got issued a legal notice dated 29-12-1980, Ex.A-1, requiring the appellants to re-deliver the possession of the suit schedule land within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same. The appellants got issued a reply, dated 24-7-1980, marked as Ex.A-4, denying the allegations in EX.A-1. The respondents sought for the relief alleging that there were no bona fides on the part of the appellants and that they are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule land, together with mesne profits. 4. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. The execution of Ex. B-1 and the developments that have taken place subsequent thereto have not been denied. It was, however, alleged that the respondents did not come forward to execute the sale deed in spite of repeated requests. They also expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the balance of consideration and performed their part of obligation. The pleadings were amended subsequently. But, the relief remained substantially the same. 5. Through its judgment, dated 21-3-1989, the trial Court dismissed the suit. They also expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the balance of consideration and performed their part of obligation. The pleadings were amended subsequently. But, the relief remained substantially the same. 5. Through its judgment, dated 21-3-1989, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S. No.41 of 1989 in the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The appeal was allowed on 31-12-1993 and thereby the suit also stood decreed. Hence, the second appeal. 6. Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that his clients always insisted upon the respondents to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed and despite the same, the latter did not come forward. He contends that though there was some discrepancy as to the extent of the suit schedule property, the appellants were ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration. He submits that the lower appellate Court was not justified in taking the view that Ex. B-1 contains some interpolation or that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "the Act"). 7. Sri Challa Dhanamjay, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that except taking a bald plea that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the appellants never evinced any interest, much less, deposited the balance of consideration along with the written statement. He contends that the lower appellate Court took note of the lapses on the part of the appellants and decreed the suit. He urges that no interference is called for with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. 8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues and thereafter certain additional issues. (1) Whether the defendant committed breach of agreement of sale, dated 21-5-1975 and if so whether he is entitled to remain in possession of the suit properties? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,000/- or any amount towards past profits? (4) To what relief? Additional Issues: (1) Whether the defendant is entitled to protect his possession by operation of the doctrine of part performance contained in Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,000/- or any amount towards past profits? (4) To what relief? Additional Issues: (1) Whether the defendant is entitled to protect his possession by operation of the doctrine of part performance contained in Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act? (2) Whether the suit for possession of half of the suit land is maintainable? 9. On behalf of the respondents, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-a were marked. On behalf of the appellants, D.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-15 were marked. 10. There is no dispute that there exists an agreement of sale between the respondents and the appellants. It is a matter of record that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid on the date of agreement i.e., 21-5-1975 and the possession of the land was delivered on that day itself. Ex. B-1 contained a clause to the effect that the balance of consideration shall be paid within four months from the date of agreement and in default, the appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ Rs.1/- per month on every Rs.100/-. 11. The respondents received a sum of Rs.3,355/- on 5-1-1979. From a reading of the clause in EX.A-1 (sic. B-1) as to the consequences of non-payment of balance of consideration within four months and from the receipt of Rs.3,355/- on 5-1-1979, evidenced by Ex.B-2, it becomes evident that time is not essence of the contract. 12. In their reply to Ex.A-1, the appellants have categorically stated in EX.A-4 that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. The relevant passage reads as under: "Therefore, please advise and instruct your client that my client is ready and willing to pay the balance of the sale consideration and that my client as per your clients request would pay the same in December 1990/January 1991 and obtain a proper sale deed and get the same registered before proper authorities." Reference is made to the earlier correspondence, where the appellants are said to have, informed the respondents that they are willing to pay the entire consideration on 5-1-1979 itself. 13. 13. In the written statement, after dealing with various aspects of the matter, the appellants have ultimately stated as under: "It is further respectfully submitted that this defendant is always willing and ready to pay the balance of the sale consideration to the plaintiffs and this defendant had approached the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed for the above said land after taking the balance of consideration." 14. On behalf of the respondents, an allegation was made to the effect that the appellants did not pay the balance of consideration in spite of requests. Except self-serving statement of P.W.1, no other witness has supported this plea. Further, there is nothing on record to disclose that the respondents have made any demand for payment of balance of consideration. Through Ex.A-1, the respondents have straight away cancelled the agreement of sale unilaterally and demanded re-delivery of possession. 15. The trial Court undertook extensive discussion about the acts and omissions on the part of both the parties and took the view that the relief prayed for in the suit cannot be granted. The lower appellate Court, however, took into account certain alleged discrepancies in the deposition as well as the so-called interpolation in Ex. B-1. It failed to take note of the fact that the respondents were not able to buttress their contention by examining any independent witnesses. On the other hand, Ex. B-1 was proved beyond any pale of doubt, as to execution and contents, by examining the scribe and witnesses D. Ws.1 to 3. 16. Even if there existed any scope for doubting the respective stands taken by the parties, as regards the payment of balance of consideration, the lower appellate Court was under obligation to examine the scope of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. It was only with a view to meet such contingencies that Section 53-A of the Act was enacted. Once the suit schedule property was delivered to the appellants in part performance of the agreement of sale i.e., EX.B-1 and once the appellants have expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract, the Section got attracted straightaway, and the lower appellate Court was not justified in directing eviction of the appellants from the suit land. 17. Once the suit schedule property was delivered to the appellants in part performance of the agreement of sale i.e., EX.B-1 and once the appellants have expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract, the Section got attracted straightaway, and the lower appellate Court was not justified in directing eviction of the appellants from the suit land. 17. One significant aspect of the-matter is that while the trial Court totally dismissed the suit, the lower appellate Court reversed it and neither of them have ensured compliance with Section 53-A of the Act. Even while protecting the possession of the appellants, the Courts were under obligation to ensure that the appellants paid the balance of consideration as provided for under Ex. B-1. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court shall be substituted with the following. (a) that the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and ejectment of defendants there from is rejected. (b) that there shall be decree against the defendants for payment of the balance of consideration together with interest @ 12% thereon from 5-1-1979 till the date of decree and @ 9% on the total amount till the date of realization; and (c) that the amount that was deposited by the appellants to the credit of the suit shall be taken into account.