Judgment :- This Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of Courts below dismissing Plaintiffs suit for Specific Performance of contract. Legal heirs of unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellants in the Second Appeal. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suit. 2. Admitted facts are that Plaintiff executed a sale deed dated 110. 1984 with respect to suit property in favour of Defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. On the same day i.e. 110. 1984, Defendant executed a registered deed of reconveyance in favour of Plaintiff and received Rs.250/-as an advance out of consideration of Rs.20,000/-. As per the deed of reconveyance, Plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.19,750/- to the Defendant within three years from the date of reconveyance deed. 3. Case of the Plaintiff is that she approached the Defendant with balance amount of Rs.19,750/- ten days prior to last date as per the deed of reconveyance. But the Defendant evaded execution by giving lame excuses. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant refused to execute sale deed in favour of Plaintiff until the debts obtained by the son of Plaintiff are satisfied with the family members of the Defendant. Alleging that Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of contract and that Defendant has committed breach of contract, Plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.144/1989. 4. Admitting the sale deed dated 110. 1984 and execution of reconveyance agreement, Defendant filed written statement accepting receipt of Rs.250/- as advance towards reconveyance. Defendant denied that Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. According to the Defendant, Plaintiff was not having the balance amount of Rs.19,250/- to pay towards balance sale consideration and Plaintiff never approached the Defendant to execute sale deed in her favour. Pointing out that balance amount was not deposited into the court, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 5. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that Plaintiff was able to made ready the balance amount only on 23. 1989. Pointing out that balance sale consideration was deposited only on 17. 1990 in the court, trial court held that Plaintiff has not proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 6. 1989. Pointing out that balance sale consideration was deposited only on 17. 1990 in the court, trial court held that Plaintiff has not proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 6. In the appeal preferred bythe Plaintiff, lower Appellate court also held that Plaintiff had deposited the balance amount only after the direction from the court. Finding that the balance amount was ready by the Plaintiff only on 23. 1989 confirming the findings of the trial court, lower Appellate coure dismissed the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff. 7. Concurrent findings of the courts below are challenged by the Plaintiff. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:- .(1) Whether the plaintiff exercised her personal right of pre-emption, within the stipulated time for re-purchase of the suit property as per Exhibit A1? .(2) In a contract of sale with a condition to re-purchase, whether the provision of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act will get attracted? .8. Mr. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the Appellants contended that requirement for performance of reconveyance agreement is different from the requirements to perform any agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the purpose for which the deed of reconveyance was executed was only to get over the financial crisis which was not kept in view by the courts below. Learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that in any event pre-condition to deposit the amount is not an essential requisite to obtain decree for specific performance and while so, courts below erred in declining the relief of specific performance to the Plaintiff. 9. Submitting that Plaintiff had deposited money only on 17. 1990, Mr. Sanjai Babu, learned counsel for the Respondents has contended that Courts below rightly held that Plaintiff did not have the money. Learned counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that Plaintiff has not proved her continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract. Learned counsel for the Respondent further urged that if the Plaintiff was not ready even for one day, equitable remedy should not be granted and upon appreciation of facts and circumstances, courts below rightly dismissed Plaintiffs suit for specific performance and there is no reason warranting interference. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent further urged that if the Plaintiff was not ready even for one day, equitable remedy should not be granted and upon appreciation of facts and circumstances, courts below rightly dismissed Plaintiffs suit for specific performance and there is no reason warranting interference. 10. Courts below declined the relief of specific performance mainly on the ground that Plaintiff was not ready with the money. Date of reconveyance agreement is 110. 1984. Time fixed for performance of contract was 110. 1987. Courts below held that Plaintiff was not ready with the cash of Rs.19,750/-. As seen from Ex.A5 Pass Book of Plaintiffs Savings Bank Account, Plaintiff had deposited Rs.9000/-on 1. 1988 and she has withdrawn the same on 22. 1988. Only on 23. 1989, Plaintiff had deposited cash of Rs.19,750/-. 11. To hold that Plaintiff was not ready with the balance amount, courts below pointed out three suits filed against the Plaintiffs son. Plaintiffs son borrowed amount from Subramani who is the relative of Defendant. For recovery of Rs.12,865/- ( for borrowal of Rs.10,000/-)., the said Subramani has filed O.S.No.422/1988. Subramani had also filed O.S.No.592/1988 for recovery of Rs.6,346.25 (borrowal amount Rs.5000/-) and O.S.No.630/1988 was filed for recovery of Rs.12,700/- (borrowal amount Rs.10,000/-) against the Plaintiffs son Rengasamy. Pointing out filing of suits against the Plaintiffs son for recovery of money, courts below raised doubts whether Plaintiff had cash to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated time. 12. Yet another circumstance seems to have been weighed substantially in the mind of the Courts below. That Plaintiff sold another property to one Viswanathan on 22. 1984 from whom also, Plaintiff had taken an agreement for reconveyance of the said property. But the Plaintiff did not re-purchase within the time and Viswanathan sold the property to Mani @ Natarajan under Ex.B1 sale deed dated 19.02.1986. The said Mani @ Natarajan is stated to be the close relative of the Defendant. 13. During her cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that she had deposited Rs.19,750/-only on 23. 1989. During her cross examination, Plaintiff accepted the suggestion put to her that she had no amount before 23. 1989. Laying emphasis upon the answers of the Plaintiff during cross examination, learned counsel for the Respondents forcibly contended that Plaintiff was not possessed of Rs.19,750/-for getting reconveyance within three years from 110. 1989. During her cross examination, Plaintiff accepted the suggestion put to her that she had no amount before 23. 1989. Laying emphasis upon the answers of the Plaintiff during cross examination, learned counsel for the Respondents forcibly contended that Plaintiff was not possessed of Rs.19,750/-for getting reconveyance within three years from 110. 1984 and therefore, Courts below rightly declined the relief for specific performance. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants, courts below erred in taking isolated answer elicited during cross examination to arrive at the conclusion that Plaintiff was not having the balance amount before 110. 1987. 14. Placing reliance upon 1996-2-Law Weekly-1 (Pachaiappan and 2 others vs. S.P.Koon Mari), learned counsel for the Appellants contended that courts below ought not to have placed the Plaintiff having reconveyance with the same pedestal as one who seeks to purchase the property under the sale agreement. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that requirement for performance of contract as per the deed of reconveyance is different from the requirements to perform the contract as per the deed of sale agreement and courts below failed to see the performance for which deed of reconveyance was executed only to get over the financial crisis. It was further argued that in case of reconveyance, intention of the person who agreed to re-convey would be that he may not retain the property for ever and the same is done only to give helping hand to the person from financial crisis. .15. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that agreement of reconveyance has to be treated on par with any other agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the Respondent further argued that time is essence of contract in the case of reconveyance and when demonstrably Plaintiff did not have money, courts below rightly declined to grant the relief of specific performance. 16. Of course, in case of reconveyance, concession or privilege is given to the seller to repurchase the property under the agreement. In the present case, it is to be seen whether Plaintiff did not have the sale consideration within the stipulated time and whether she was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. 17. 16. Of course, in case of reconveyance, concession or privilege is given to the seller to repurchase the property under the agreement. In the present case, it is to be seen whether Plaintiff did not have the sale consideration within the stipulated time and whether she was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. 17. In 1993 (1) M.L.J. 560 (Viswanathan and others vs. R.Lakshmi Ammal (dead) and others) it was held that it is settled law that the question whether time is or is not essence of the contract has to be decided only on the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. Observing that readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff has to be determined from facts and circumstances of the case, in (2006) 2 M.L.J. 651 (Yesudass (died) and others vs. Henry Victor and others), this Court has held that the factum of readiness and willingness to perform part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the parties and the attending circumstances. The court must infer from the facts and circumstances whether the Plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. 19. Readiness and willingness of Plaintiff to perform her part of contract is to be adjudged with reference to facts, conduct of party and attending circumstances. Court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. As pointed out earlier, Plaintiffs son Rengasamy (2nd Appellant) borrowed some amount from Subramani and for recovery of the same, three suits were filed. As the Plaintiff was not in a position to get the reconveyance from Viswanathan, under Ex.B1 Plaintiff and Viswanathan sold the property to Mani @ Natarajan who is closely related to the Defendant. Under such circumstances, relationship between the parties must have been strained. While so, Defendant cannot be expected to execute the sale deed in favour of Plaintiff. Courts below failed to analyse the defence in the light of (i) strained relationship between the parties; (ii) there were atleast three suits filed against the Plaintiffs son for recovery of amount by Subramani who is stated to be closely related to the Defendant. 20. For performance of agreement of reconveyance, court cannot adopt the same stringent standards as are applicable in case of enforcement of other agreements. 20. For performance of agreement of reconveyance, court cannot adopt the same stringent standards as are applicable in case of enforcement of other agreements. Observing that in case of agreement for reconveyance, court cannot adopt the same stringent standards as are applicable in case of enforcement of other agreement in 1996-2-Law Weekly-1 (Pachaiappan and 2 others vs. S.P. Koon Mari), Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- " Reliance is placed on Jugraj Singh vs. Raj Singh ( AIR 1995 SC 945 ) in which it is held that continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from date of agreement till date of hearing of suit must be proved. In our opinion, the ruling cannot apply to a case of agreement for reconveyance. In the case of a sale with an agreement for reconveyance, the property is sold by the vendor in order to get over a financial crisis. The agreement for reconveyance of the said property at the same price at which it was sold after a certain period would itself show that the parties agreed that there was no permanent transfer of ownership and in the event of the vendor paying the amount of consideration within a particular date, his ownership would be restored. It has been repeatedly held that the sale and the agreement of reconveyance form part of one transaction. It has been construed to be an option to the vendor and an undertaking by the purchaser that he would execute a deed of reconveyance in the event of the exercise of the option by the vendor within the stipulated period. That is why it has been held that time is the essence of the contract of reconveyance and if the period lapsed, the vendor would lose the right to get back the property." " ..... In the case of an agreement for reconveyance, the court cannot adopt the same stringent standards as are applicable to a case of enforcement of other agreements. In the case of an agreement for reconveyance, the court cannot adopt the same stringent standards as are applicable to a case of enforcement of other agreements. The person who was the owner of the property and had by the force of circumstances to part with the same for a temporary period and the purchaser being fully aware of the same, having undertaken to restore the status quo ante by reconveying the property for the same amount of consideration, cannot be placed on the same pedestal as a person who seeks to acquire ownership of the property for the first time by enforcing an agreement." 21. It may be that there were certain stray answers elicited from the Plaintiff that she was not having balance amount. In a catena of decisions, Courts have held that it is not essential that Plaintiff should tender the money or deposit it in court, except when so directed. 22. Courts below erred in adopting the stringent standards as to readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff in respect of Ex.A1. Where the courts below failed to consider the evidence and conduct of parties in a proper perspective, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., High Court can certainly interfere. Concurrent findings of the courts below on facts are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence and therefore, the concurrent findings cannot be sustained. 23. Next point to be considered is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. Upon evidence, it is clear that sale deed was executed by the Plaintiff alienating the house property for family necessity. Admittedly, front portion has been sold to the Defendants close relative who has built up shop portions and residential portion is situated at the rear side. Admittedly, Appellants continued to be in possession of the suit property. To say that Appellants are not entitled to the relief of specific performance would deprive them of their family house, where the Appellants are residing for quite a long time. 24. Plaintiff has deposited the balance amount of Rs.19,750/- on 11.07.1990. Agreement of reconveyance is of the year 1984. Property being situated in Papparapatti which is a selection grade town panchayat, value of the property has considerably increased. For getting the sale deed executed, Appellants are to be directed to pay higher amount so as to compensate the Defendant. 25. 24. Plaintiff has deposited the balance amount of Rs.19,750/- on 11.07.1990. Agreement of reconveyance is of the year 1984. Property being situated in Papparapatti which is a selection grade town panchayat, value of the property has considerably increased. For getting the sale deed executed, Appellants are to be directed to pay higher amount so as to compensate the Defendant. 25. In similar circumstances, in 2008-2-Law Weekly-35 (Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and others vs. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and others), the balance sale consideration payable was Rs.1,10,000/-. Plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration. For ordering decree for specific performance, Supreme Court has directed the Plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000/-over and above the balance amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Following the ratio of the said decision and having regard to the increase in value of the immovable property, Appellants are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-( Two lakhs )over and above the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,750/-. 26. In the result, " Concurrent findings of the Courts below in A.S.No.17/1992 dated 30.11.1993 on the file of District Court, Dharmapuri (arising out of the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.144/1989 dated 18.09.1990 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri) is set aside and this Second Appeal is allowed. Suit for specific performance is decreed. " Appellants are directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lakhs) to the credit of O.S.No.144/1989 on the file of Sub-Court, Dharmapuri over and above Rs.19,750/-within a period of three months from the date of this Judgment. " Respondents are permitted to withdraw Rs.19,750/-said to have been deposited to the credit of O.S.No.144/1989 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri along with accrued interest. " Respondents are directed to execute the sale deed within the period of eight weeks on deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. On their failure to execute the sale deed, Apppellants are at liberty to get the sale deed executed through process of the court. " On failure of the Appellants to deposit Rs.2,00,000/-, the Judgment of the Courts below shall stand revived. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.