JUDGMENT SUBHASH B. ADI, J.—This appeal is by the defendants against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 5150/1988 dated 16th August 2003 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court. 3. Suit is one for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.2.1988. 4. Plaintiff’s case is that, he had a enlarged family and he wanted to sell his house to buy a bigger one, he came in contact with the defendants, who were in need of funds for family necessities, to discharge some loans in Karnataka Housing Board and to meet the expenses to put up upstairs construction in their own property. Deceased defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement on 11.2.1988 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs. 1,52,500/-. Out of the total sale consideration, Rs. 54,500/- was received as a part of advance sale consideration by means of cheque. Plaintiff was to pay balance of sale consideration of Rs. 98,000/- on the date of registration of the sale deed. The said transaction was to be completed within six months. Plaintiff also agreed to bear the expenses of registration charges, stamp duty and preparation of sale deed, plaintiff was always ready and willing to discharge his part of contract including payment of balance sale consideration and he had kept the money ready, and is deposited in Indian Bank, Avenue Road Branch, under the deposit receipt dated 28.7.1988. However, under the agreement, defendants had agreed to secure possession certificate, sale deed, khata certificate, tax paid receipts from the Karnataka Housing Board. When the defendants did not hand over the documents, on account of the delay caused by the defendants in handing over the possession of the property and concluding the registration of the sale deed, plaintiff was constrained to issue notice dated 4.5.1988, 3.8.1988 and 19.8.1988 to the defendants, calling upon them to produce the documents to prepare formal sale deed and to conclude the registration by accepting the balance of sale consideration. 5. 5. Defendants in reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff, made faulty defence inter alia admitting the agreement and denying to execute the sale deed on the ground that, the plaintiff had not put up solid concrete pillars with strong foundation with a girth of one foot of 10 feet vertical and 8 feet horizontal by the side of the centre load bearing common wall. Plaintiff though was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, one or the other reason, the defendants postponed the execution of the sale deed, as such, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance. 6. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed separate written statement inter alia alleging that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He never came forward to construct pillars and beam, as agreed, the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants to enable the defendant No. 1 to perform his first daughter’s marriage. Since the plaintiff did not make the payment and did not construct the pillars as agreed, the defendants are not liable to execute the sale deed. It is also contended that, if the decree is granted, it would cause great hardship to the defendants. 7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs. 1,52,500/- as per agreement of sale dated 11.2.1988? (2) Whether it is further proved that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Specific Performance of the contract? (4) Whether the defendant proves that he has not executed the agreement to sell the suit schedule property, but his signature was taken on the agreement, and it was not acted upon and it is incomplete? (5) Whether the agreement is void and not enforceable in law? (6) Whether the defendant proves that for non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff, he has forfeited the advance amount? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises? (8) What order or decree? 8. Before the trial Court, plaintiff’s son got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. (6) Whether the defendant proves that for non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff, he has forfeited the advance amount? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises? (8) What order or decree? 8. Before the trial Court, plaintiff’s son got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of defendants, second defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and in her evidence, Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. 9. Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence held that, the plaintiff has proved that, he has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs. 1,52,500/- under the agreement dated 11.2.1988; plaintiff has proved that, he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract; plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the contract, however, defendants have failed to prove that for non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff, plaintiff has forfeited his right to enforce the agreement. 10. As against the said judgment and decree, the defendants are in appeal. 11. Heard Sri. M.S. Purushothama Rao, learned Counsel for the defendants and Sri. Gangadhar Aithal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Sri. Purushothama Rao, learned Counsel submitted that, Ex.P2 is an agreement. Agreement stipulates that, the purchaser shall contract two pillars wall adjoining the vendor’s property measuring 8 feet × 10 feet at his own cost and risk. Plaintiff though has issued notice as per Exs.P3, P4 and P5, however, the defendants by means of a reply Ex.P6 have specifically stated that, the agreement for sale referred to for providing two pillars at the cost of the plaintiff as per the measurement stipulated therein. However, plaintiff had failed to construct the said pillars, which was part of the contract nor came forward to pay the balance of sale consideration. Hence, defendants were not under obligation to execute the sale deed. He also relied on Ex.P7 and contended that, again defendants by another reply dated 8.8.1988, wherein the defendants had made clear that the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract. Putting up of the said pillars is a condition precedent for effecting the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not attended to fulfill the condition in spite of repeated request by the defendants. 13. Putting up of the said pillars is a condition precedent for effecting the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not attended to fulfill the condition in spite of repeated request by the defendants. 13. Plaintiff was also not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and as such, defendants were not required to execute the sale deed. He also relied on Ex.P8, another reply given by the defendants on 3rd September 1988 and contended that, defendants again called upon the plaintiff to construct pillars within 15 days failing which the agreement stands forfeited. These Exs.P6, P7 and P8 clearly stipulate that, in terms of the contract, obligation was on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract and called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed, having failed to construct the pillars as agreed and despite the defendants’ reply as per Exs.P6, P7 and P8, the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of contract. When the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of contract, plaintiff cannot demand performance of the contract by the defendants. 14. Defendants were only required to execute the sale deed by receiving sale consideration and by handing over the documents. He also relied on the evidence of DW-1 and Ex.P6 to show that the defendants had entered into an agreement for the purpose of performing the marriage of first defendant’s first daughter and the plaintiff admittedly did not pay the balance of sale consideration, as such, defendants were forced to sell another portion of the house to perform the marriage of the first daughter of first defendant. 15. In the alternate, he contended that, when the agreement was entered into, defendant No. 1 was alive and agreement was entered into with the plaintiff for the purpose of performing the marriage of the first daughter of defendant No. 1. Deceased defendant sold the other property for performance of marriage, and in view of death of defendant No. 1, if the decree is passed, it will cause great hardship, hence, alternatively, Court may order for refund of advance amount. 16. On the other hand, Sri. Aithal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, both the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed in six months. 16. On the other hand, Sri. Aithal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, both the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed in six months. Under the agreement, vendors agreed to produce the possession certificate, sale deed, khata certificate, up to date tax paid receipts from the Karnataka Housing Board at the time of registration of the sale deed, Ex.P3 is a notice issued by the plaintiff on 4th May 1988. Though under the agreement Ex.P2, six months’ time was agreed for completion of the sale transaction from 11th February 1988, however, within three months, plaintiff had called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving the sale consideration. In the said notice also, plaintiff had agreed to bear the expenses of registration, stamp duty and other incidental expenditure and he had also made known that the defendants have been constructing another house in the vacant site towards west of the schedule property and have removed two doors of the suit schedule property fixed by them and alleged that, the construction is being illegally carried out by damaging the suit schedule property and called upon to maintain the suit schedule property comprising of dwelling house with open space around the schedule property in tact and to hand over possession as per the measurement. However, no reply was caused to the said notice. Despite that, again the plaintiff by another notice dated 3.8.1988 called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving the sale consideration, for which, the defendants caused a reply dated 11.5.1988 as per Ex.P6 by taking up untenable plea that the construction of two pillars was the essence of the contract. Plaintiff by another notice dated 10th August 1988, again called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed and in the said notice, he made it clear that, as far as construction of pillars, the plaintiff is ready to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in order to carry out the construction work by the defendants themselves and he is also ready to pay the bill that may be incurred for construction of the pillars by the defendants. Thus, plaintiff had agreed to perform each of the terms of the contract as stipulated much before the period of six months, despite that, the defendants unwilling to perform their part of contract and gave untenable replies as per Exs.P6, P7 and P8. 17. Thus, plaintiff had agreed to perform each of the terms of the contract as stipulated much before the period of six months, despite that, the defendants unwilling to perform their part of contract and gave untenable replies as per Exs.P6, P7 and P8. 17. He further submitted that, neither the terms of the agreement nor there was any agreement for payment of balance of sale consideration towards the marriage of the first daughter of the first defendant, in turn, in the evidence of DW-1, DW-1 has admitted that, even as on the date of giving evidence, her first daughter has not married. He also pointed out from the said evidence that, DW-1 had categorically stated that, if the pillars are constructed, she is ready to execute the sale deed, at the same time, she had also stated that, neither her husband nor herself was ever ready to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement Ex.P2. This clearly shows that, defendants were not intended to execute the sale deed in pursuance of Ex.P2. Though the plaintiff was ready to bear the expenditure of construction of the pillars, deliberately and intentionally to deny the execution of the sale deed, untenable replies were given by the defendants. 18. As regard to ready and willingness, he submitted that, apart from plaintiff agreeing to pay the amount, he had produced the xerox copy of the Bank deposit receipt (not marked), but amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited in the Indian Bank. In turn, plaintiff had also repeatedly even before expiry of the time, had issued notice. As per the agreement Ex.P2, six months’ time was agreed. In May 1988 and August 1988, two notices were issued. Further, the suit itself is filed on 29.10.1988. Thus, the plaintiff from the date of the agreement, he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, he had shown his readiness by conduct and by attitude also. 19. As regard to the hardship, learned Counsel submitted that, though in the evidence DW-1 has stated that, money was required for the purpose of her daughter’s marriage, she has admitted that the marriage of the first daughter of defendant No. 1 was not performed even as on the date of the evidence. 19. As regard to the hardship, learned Counsel submitted that, though in the evidence DW-1 has stated that, money was required for the purpose of her daughter’s marriage, she has admitted that the marriage of the first daughter of defendant No. 1 was not performed even as on the date of the evidence. In turn, another portion of the property was sold by the defendants, same also shows that the defendants were not in need of money for the purpose of performing the marriage of the daughter. He also submitted that, hardship has to be understood in terms of Section 20 sub-section (2) clause (b) of the Specific Relief Act. If the vendor had not foreseen the hardship as on the date of the agreement, in such event, the Court may exercise its judicial discretion and consider the hardship, neither there is an evidence nor such pleading in the written statement. Hence, he submitted that, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. 20. In the light of the contentions raised by both the Counsel, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for interference? 21. From the pleadings, it is not in dispute that, the plaintiff and defendants had entered into an agreement of sale as per Ex.P2 dated 11.2.1988. The terms of the agreement stipulate that, parties to complete the transaction within six months. The main clause on which the defendants contended that they are not liable to execute the sale deed is a clause where the plaintiff had agreed to construct two pillars adjoining the wall of the vendor’s property measuring 8 feet x 10 feet. However, the entire reading of the Ex.P2, it does not show that the construction of two pillars was main essence of the contract. In turn, defendants’ vendors had agreed that they would produce possession certificate, sale deed, khata certificate, tax paid receipts from the Karnataka Housing Board. It is not in dispute that, the property was allotted to defendant No. 1 by the Karnataka Housing Board, sale deed from the Karnataka Housing Board and the possession certificate were must for execution of the sale deed. 22. It is not in dispute that, the property was allotted to defendant No. 1 by the Karnataka Housing Board, sale deed from the Karnataka Housing Board and the possession certificate were must for execution of the sale deed. 22. Plaintiff though he had six months’ time to seek for enforcement of the agreement, however, within three months from the date of agreement, by Ex.P3 dated 4th May 1988, plaintiff had called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed by taking the balance of sale consideration. Admittedly, defendants did not even reply to the said notice. Ex.P4 is another notice issued on 3rd August 1988 wherein also he had made himself clear that, he is ready with cash and called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed for which for the first time, defendants caused a reply dated 11.5.1988 as per Ex.P6. But in Ex.P6, the defendants’ defence was that, construction of two pillars adjoining the wall of the vendor’s property. For the same, by way of another notice, plaintiff as per Ex.P5 dated 10th August 1988 has stated as under: “The question of putting up the Pillars in question my client is ready to deposit Rs. 5,000/- to your goodself in order to pay the bill that may be incurred for construction of the said two pillars by your clients as specified in the agreement. Alternately even your client may undertake the construction and debit the charges of those two pillars to my client and my client is always ready to pay the expenses incurred in this behalf through your goodself. Again as an another alternative my client proposes to give any undertaking to pay the cost of the pillars or to construct the pillars, my client himself through his masons and then claim the deposit from you which would be kept anywhere that your goodself may suggest.” 23. Plaintiff not only gave an offer of paying money for construction of the pillars, but also suggested for allowing the mason of his own to construct pillars or even he was ready to deposit money as suggested by the defendants. To this, the reply was as per Ex.P8 wherein defendants instead of either agreeing or taking up construction, took up the defence of directing the plaintiff to put up construction within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. To this, the reply was as per Ex.P8 wherein defendants instead of either agreeing or taking up construction, took up the defence of directing the plaintiff to put up construction within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The learned trial Judge has found that the construction of two pillars and beam as suggested by the defendants could not be possible within 15 days as stated in Ex.P5. Apart from this, DW-1 in her cross-examination at para-3 categorically states as under: “It is true that myself and my husband were never to execute Sale Deed in pursuance of Ex.P2.” Further admits in the cross-examination that, they have filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff had come along with goondas threatening for execution of the sale deed. The evidence of DW-1 shows that, defendants were never intended to execute the sale deed. It is also clear from the replies Exs.P6 to P8, in turn, by Ex.P5 the plaintiff has categorically made it clear that he is ready to put up construction for which he is ready to abide by the direction of the defendants, defendants instead of putting up construction, took up an untenable defence that, unless the construction is made, they will not execute the sale deed. Defendants were not allowed the plaintiff to construct nor agreed to construct by themselves. 24. In case of contract for transfer of immovable property, ordinarily time will not be an essence of the contract. In this case, parties have also not treated the time as the essence of the contract. Further, construction of two pillars cannot be considered as the main essence of the contract. However, that is also not denied by the plaintiff. Further, when the plaintiff has shown his readiness not only by means of issuing notice but also calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed and filing a suit immediately within two months of the expiry of six months, it proves his readiness and willingness. 25. As far as hardship is concerned, Section 20 sub-section (2) clause (b) of the Specific Relief Act reads as under: “20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.—(1) ………………. 25. As far as hardship is concerned, Section 20 sub-section (2) clause (b) of the Specific Relief Act reads as under: “20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.—(1) ………………. (2) The following are cases in which the Court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance— (a) ……………………… (b) where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff.” 26. Plaintiff in his pleadings has specifically pleaded that, he had sold his small house to buy the suit schedule property and has also pleaded that, he has no other house except the one he had agreed to purchase. As against this, defendants’ defence was that, apart from the suit schedule property, there was neighbouring property over which they were supposed to construct another house and evidence also suggested that, they were putting up construction as the plaintiff by notice Ex.P3 had warned the defendants not to damage or alter the suit schedule property while constructing the neighbouring property. At the time of execution of the sale deed, defendants were aware of the transfer of this house and it is admitted by DW-1 that her daughter’s marriage was to be performed and there is no other pleading or evidence as to what was the hardship that was not foreseen. In the absence of specific pleading and the evidence, the trial Court has rightly held that there is no hardship that would be caused if the decree is granted to the plaintiff. 27. From the above circumstances and findings of the trial Court, I find that the trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence has rightly decreed the suit, which does not call for interference. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal fails and same is dismissed, however, parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.