N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 4th July 2001 in RA No. 38/1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mysore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 6th August 1998 in O. S. No. 185/1993 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Mysore. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff - respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. One lakh together with future interest at 24% per annum on the ground that, the defendants - appellants herein are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of plaintiff respondent that, he has entered into an agreement of sale with defendants - appellants herein on 5th July 1990 agreeing that the appellants would sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff -respondent for valuable consideration of Rs. 03,45,000/ -. On the date of agreement of sale, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was paid as advance amount to the defendants -appellants herein in cash and the defendants - appellants herein had agreed to receive the balance consideration of rs. 02,95,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed before the Jurisdictional Sub Registrar, mysore within three months from the date of agreement of sale. In spite of several requests made by the plaintiff - respondent with the defendants - appellants herein to execute the sale deed and receive the balance sale consideration, the defendants - appellants had been postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. In spite of the sincere efforts by the plaintiff - respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour, the defendants appellants herein made efforts to commit breech of contract before the due date itself. Even though the date of executing the sale deed was on 5th October 1990, as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the defendants appellants herein have got issued the legal notice on 1st October 1990 itself, by terminating the contract which was valid upto 5th October 1990. Even though the date of executing the sale deed was on 5th October 1990, as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the defendants appellants herein have got issued the legal notice on 1st October 1990 itself, by terminating the contract which was valid upto 5th October 1990. Immediately after receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff - respondent herein has also issued the legal notice on 3rd October 1990 itself expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract by paying balance sale consideration to the defendants - appellants herein but the defendants went on postponing the matter without any reason and failed to execute the sale deed. As per the terms of agreement, the defendants appellants are liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages in view of non performance of the contract or for breach of agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff respondent was constrained to issue legal notice on 20th May 1993 calling upon the defendants - appellants herein to refund the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with damages of Rs. 50,000/- for terminating the agreement of sale. In spite of issuing the said legal notice, the defendants appellants herein have failed to establish their case. Therefore, the plaintiff respondent was constrained to file a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. One lakh together with 24% interest per annum. After receipt of the suit summons from the Trial Court, the defendants - appellants herein have filed the detailed written statement and admitted for having received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance as part of sale consideration in respect of the property in question. However, it is the case of defendants that, they were in need of money and since the plaintiff failed to purchase the schedule property well in time, having no other option, they were constrained to mortgage the ground floor for a sum of rs. 75,000/- to meet the education expenses of the children of the defendants appellants. The plaintiff - respondent, having no other alternative, filed the suit for recovery. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of both parties and the material available on record, has framed six issues for consideration. After critical evaluation of the relevant oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein. The plaintiff - respondent, having no other alternative, filed the suit for recovery. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of both parties and the material available on record, has framed six issues for consideration. After critical evaluation of the relevant oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein. Assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants - appellants herein have filed a Regular Appeal in R. A. No. 38/1998 on the file of the Principal District judge, Mysore. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Lower Appellate Court on 4th July 2001. The Lower Appellate Court after reconsideration and re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, the defendants - appellants herein have presented the instant appeal. ( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for defendants - appellants is that, the plaintiff - respondent has failed to act upon the terms and conditions of the agreement. When the plaintiff has failed to pay the balance amount well in time and get the property registered well within the date of agreement, the defendants appellants were constrained to issue a legal notice for termination of the agreement. Due to financial constraints of appellants, the appellants were compelled to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit schedule property. In view of non payment of the said amount well in time, the appellants were constrained to let out the ground floor of the suit schedule property to third party by way of mortgage and that, due to termination of the contract, the appellants have incurred loss. The plaintiff respondent except issuing notice stating that, he is ready and willing to get the sale deed registered and pay the balance sale consideration, has not shown any bona fide and went on post-poning the matter on one pretext or the other. Further, he submitted that, the plaintiff respondent was never ready to pay the sale consideration and was not in good financial position to pay the remaining amount to execute the sate deed. Further, he submitted that, the plaintiff respondent was never ready to pay the sale consideration and was not in good financial position to pay the remaining amount to execute the sate deed. This aspect of the matter has not at all been looked into nor considered by both the Courts below. To substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in (Jitendra Nath Roy v. Smt. Maheswari Bose) and submitted that, the respondent plaintiff must prove that, he had taken all essential steps to perform his part of agreement and must show that, financially he was in a position to perform his part of contract. Therefore, he submitted that, when this aspect was specifically pointed out, both the Courts below neither considered the same nor have given any finding on that aspect of the matter. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff - respondent, inter alia, contended and substantiated stating that, there is no error or illegality as such in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and both the Courts below have after appreciation and re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and relevant material available on file have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the defendants - appellants herein. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the appellants herein have fairly conceded before the Trial Court that, they are ready and willing to pay the agreed advance amount with interest. This admission and submission are sufficient to satisfy this Court to evaluate the conduct of the appellants and that the very fact has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts below and thereafter decreed the suit. Therefore he submitted that, in view of clear admission by the appellants themselves, the instant second appeal filed by defendants appellants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for defendants - appellants and learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff - respondent. Therefore he submitted that, in view of clear admission by the appellants themselves, the instant second appeal filed by defendants appellants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for defendants - appellants and learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff - respondent. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file threadbare and after going through the relevant material available on file, and after careful perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, it is manifest on the face of the judgment and decree that both the Courts below have not committed any error of law much less material irregularity. After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the defendants -appellants. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, after taking into consideration the categorical admission made by the defendants -appellants herein, interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any substantial ground as such made out by the appellants to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, it can be seen that, the Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of both parties has framed six issues for consideration and answered issues 1 and 3 in negative and issues 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the affirmative. The plaintiff to substantiate his case, has got himself examined as PW1 and also examined two other independent witnesses viz. PWs. 2 and 3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9 on the other hand, the first appellant herein examined himself as DW1 and examine another witness as DW2 and got marked Exhibits D1 to d13. The Trial Court after careful perusal of the material available on record after considering the evidence of both the parties and other relevant material available on record, has given a specific finding that, the defendants - appellants have admitted in their cross - examination regarding the advance amount of Rs. The Trial Court after careful perusal of the material available on record after considering the evidence of both the parties and other relevant material available on record, has given a specific finding that, the defendants - appellants have admitted in their cross - examination regarding the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- received by them and that, the remaining amount was supposed to be received by them at the time of registration of sale deed in the Sub registrar's Office and also admitted that, any failure on the part of either party, the opposite party is entitled to claim damages of Rs. 50,000/- as per the terms of agreement - Ex. P1. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after assigning cogent reasons has opined that, the plaintiff - respondent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. One lakh from the defendants - appellants herein along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the advance sum Rs. 50,000/-from the date of judgment till the date of realisation and no interest was granted on the damages amount of Rs. 50,000/ -. The Lower Appellate Court, after considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, after careful perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties, has raised two points for its consideration. The Lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence including the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, has given a specific finding that, at any stretch of imagination, there is no justifiable action on the part of defendants - appellants herein and therefore, the same has resulted in breach of contract particularly before the expiry of the prescribed period as per Ex. P1. From the relevant material available in the original records, it emerges that, there has been an admission in unequivocal terms by the defendants appellants regarding receipt of Rs. 50,000/- as advance under Ex. P1. After carefully going through all these aspects, it can be seen that, the defendants appellants have committed breech of the terms and conditions of agreement with the plaintiff respondent and therefore, both the Courts have recorded that, in addition to the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of another Rs. 50,000/- as damages as per the conditions of agreement. 50,000/-, the plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of another Rs. 50,000/- as damages as per the conditions of agreement. Further, it is also specifically recorded that, the defendants appellants have admitted that, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff respondent as the same had been received by them as advance on 5th July 1990 from the plaintiff respondent. The Lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has opined that, in spite of re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is unable for them to come to any other conclusion than the one arrived at by the Trial Court, Therefore, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Further, it is specifically observed by the Lower Appellate Court that, the defendants - appellants have received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance from the respondent - plaintiff on 5th July 1990 and therefore, they are entitled to pay the said amount along with interest at 06% per annum from the date of judgment till realisation and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages. The Lower Appellate court, after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has further observed that, Trial court has shown maximum leniency to the defendants appellants in regard to award of interest only from the date of judgment till realisation and therefore, the defendants - appellants cannot seek to tap the doors of the Court seeking further remedy. The Lower Appellate Court has further observed that, even if the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-had been deposited in Government schemes, the said amount would have got doubled in six years and in this case the amount withheld by defendants is for a period of eight years. After appreciation of relevant material available on record, the observations made by the Trial Court and the evidence available on records, the Lower Appellate Court has held that, it does not find any illegality or unreasonableness in the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants appellants holding that, interference is uncalled for. The said reasoning given by the Lower Appellate Court is after reconsideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the fair submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants -appellants and also having regard to the fact that, the rate of interest awarded by the trial Court at 06% from the date of judgment till realisation is also just and reasonable. Hence, in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and the relevant material available on file, interference by this court by invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is uncalled for. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds as such made out by the appellants to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the defendants appellants is dismissed as devoid of merits.