JUDGMENT : S. Baskaran, J. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in A.S. No. 33/1999, dated 07.02.2000, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul in O.S. No. 831/1996, dated 07.10.1998, the present second appeal has been filed. The plaintiffs, who lost before the courts below are the appellants herein. 2. One Karuppayi Ammal, owner of the suit property entered into a sale agreement (Ex.A.1) with one Sowdamuthu on 16.07.1986, agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs. 10,100/- and received a sum of Rs. 100/- as advance for the same. As per the sale agreement, the balance sale consideration should be paid in 10 yearly installments by the said Sowdamuthu and on doing so, Karuppayi Ammal should execute the sale deed in favour of Sowdamuthu, failing which, Sowdamuthu was authorised to take necessary legal action to get the sale deed executed. While so, the said Sowdamuthu passed away on 24.11.1993, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant as his legal heirs. Similarly, the said Karuppayi Ammal also died during 1990, leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as her legal representatives. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Sowdamuthu viz., the plaintiffs and fifth defendant asked the defendants to execute the sale deed during June 1996, but, they failed to do so. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the sale agreement and are also ready to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit seeking specific performance of Ex.A.1/sale agreement. 3. The defendants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Karuppayi Ammal filed a written statement, contending that the suit property was purchased by Karuppayi Ammal from Sowdamuthu and Lakkammal on 16.07.1986, as per Ex.B.1, sale deed and on the same day, he entered into a resale agreement with Sowdamuthu (Ex.A.1) for Rs. 10,100/-. The first defendant states that his mother Karuppayi Ammal died in the year 1990 and thereafter, he is the sole owner of the suit property and he is in enjoyment and possession of the property. Apart from the first defendant, the deceased Karuppayi Ammal had one daughter, who is the fourth defendant in the suit and another son, who had died 30 years ago, leaving behind his wife/second defendant and the only son/third defendant in the suit as his legal heirs. Apart from the first defendant, the deceased Karuppayi Ammal had one daughter, who is the fourth defendant in the suit and another son, who had died 30 years ago, leaving behind his wife/second defendant and the only son/third defendant in the suit as his legal heirs. The 2nd and 3rd defendants, after receiving Rs. 45,000/- cash, have relinquished their right in the joint family property. Hence, the defendants 2 and 3 have no right, title over the suit property. Similarly, sister of the first defendant, who is arrayed as 5th defendant in the suit, received Rs. 37,000/- and executed a release deed on 12.07.1986. Thus, the fifth defendant has also no interest or right over the suit property. After purchasing the suit property on 16.07.1986 from Sowdamuthu and Lakkammal for Rs. 10,000/-, the deceased Karuppayi Ammal had entered into a resale agreement with Sowdamuthu on the same day for Rs. 10,100/-. The deceased Sowdamuthu or his legal heirs never demanded completion of sale of the property by Karuppayi Ammal or by first defendant. It is admitted by first defendant that Ex.A.1-sale agreement was entered into between Sowdamuthu and his mother, but the plaintiffs were never prepared to fulfill their part of the Ex.A.1 sale agreement. Hence, the first defendant seeks dismissal of the suit. 4. While the defendants 2 to 4 remained ex-parte, the first defendant alone disputes the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial court, on perusal of the pleadings, has framed the following issues: xxx xxx xxx 5. During the course of trial, on the plaintiff's side, the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 alone was marked. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and documents Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 6. The trial court, on consideration of the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence, found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the readiness and willingness to perform their part of the sale agreement and they have also failed to examine necessary witnesses to prove the factum of readiness and willingness before the Court. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs did not take steps to deposit the balance sale consideration into Court and also held that Ex.A.1 is only a resale agreement and time is essence of the agreement. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs did not take steps to deposit the balance sale consideration into Court and also held that Ex.A.1 is only a resale agreement and time is essence of the agreement. The trial court further held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the readiness and willingness to perform their part of Ex.A.1-sale agreement and as such, they are not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the said findings of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 33 of 1999 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul and the first appellate court, on the basis of grounds of appeal, framed the following points for consideration: xxx xxx xxx 7. The lower appellate court held that Ex.A.1/sale agreement was entered into on 16.07.1986 and the said Sowdamuthu died only in November 1993, but no steps was taken by him till his death to perform his part of Ex.A.1/agreement. The second plaintiff, who deposed as P.W.1, admitted in his evidence that his father/Sowdamuthu never demanded for execution of sale deed by the said Karuppayi Ammal during his life time. The first appellate court also pointed out that no material is placed before the Court to prove as to when the second plaintiff met Karuppayi Ammal or her legal heirs and demanded execution of sale deed. It is further held that no pre-suit notice was issued and except the interested evidence of P.W.1, no other witness was examined by the plaintiffs before the trial court to prove the fact of demand being made by the deceased Karuppayi Ammal and her legal heirs prior to filing of the suit. Further, the first appellate court also concluded that there is no sufficient evidence available before the Court to prove the fact of the plaintiffs making demands to the defendants expressing their readiness and willingness to perform their part of sale agreement. On the basis of the said conclusion, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, by its judgment, dated 07.02.2000. 8. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs/legal heirs of the deceased Sowdamuthu have preferred the present second appeal. 9. In the memorandum of second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellants/plaintiffs. On the basis of the said conclusion, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, by its judgment, dated 07.02.2000. 8. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs/legal heirs of the deceased Sowdamuthu have preferred the present second appeal. 9. In the memorandum of second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellants/plaintiffs. "(a) Whether the findings of the lower appellate court not vitiated in law by the failure to consider the entire evidence on record and fails to apply the correct principle of law? (b) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to the provisions of section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act? (c) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit, when the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they are ready and willing to execute the agreement?" 10. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs vehemently contended that the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence let in by the plaintiffs to establish the readiness and willingness and as such, the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of agreement is not correct and seeks to reverse the findings of the courts below. 11. This court perused the records available and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. In spite of the matter being listed sufficient times, the respondents failed to appear before this court. 12. The points raised by the appellants/plaintiffs have already been elaborately discussed by the courts below and they have concurrently held that the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be entertained. In such circumstances, as both the courts below have concurrently held on factual aspects, it is to be seen whether this court, while exercising its jurisdiction under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, can entertain the second appeal and whether to do so, substantial questions of law are raised by the appellants herein. 13. The fact that the deceased Karuppayi Ammal purchased the suit property from Sowdamuthu and Lakkammal on 16.07.1986 for Rs. 10,000/- and on the same date, she entered into an agreement of sale with Sowdamuthu for Rs. 10,100/- is also admitted. Similarly, the said two persons Karuppayi Ammal and Sowdamuthu subsequently passed away is also not disputed. 13. The fact that the deceased Karuppayi Ammal purchased the suit property from Sowdamuthu and Lakkammal on 16.07.1986 for Rs. 10,000/- and on the same date, she entered into an agreement of sale with Sowdamuthu for Rs. 10,100/- is also admitted. Similarly, the said two persons Karuppayi Ammal and Sowdamuthu subsequently passed away is also not disputed. While so, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Sowdamuthu claimed that they are entitled for the relief of specific performance and they are willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- out of Rs. 10,100/- to the defendants. It is admitted by P.W.1-Murugan that when his father Sowdamuthu was alive, he never made any demand to Karuppayi Ammal or her legal heirs to execute the sale deed in his favour as per Ex.A.1-sale agreement. Admittedly, no material is placed before the Court to show that any amount was paid by Sowdamuthu or his legal heirs to Karuppayi Ammal and her legal heirs towards the balance sale consideration. Similarly, the plaintiffs have not placed any material before the court to show that they took steps to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court and there is no evidence to show that any notice was issued prior to filing of the suit by the deceased Sowdamuthu or his legal heirs to Karuppayi Amal and her legal heirs asking them to perform their part of sale agreement. The second plaintiff, who deposed as P.W.1 has stated that only after the demise of his father, he met the first defendant 2 or 3 times and requested him to execute the sale deed. According to P.W.1, he was accompanied by one Raju, during those meetings, but the said Raju was not examined before the Court. Further, P.W.1 has not stated categorically about the date, day and time of his meetings with Karuppayi Ammal or her legal heirs, when the demand for execution of sale deed was made by him. The plaintiffs have not placed any material before the courts below to show that they are in possession of sufficient money to pay the balance sale consideration. Likewise, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to deposit the balance sale consideration into court nor took steps to issue any notice to the defendants asking them to come forward to full-fill the terms of Ex.A.1/sale agreement entered into between them. Likewise, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to deposit the balance sale consideration into court nor took steps to issue any notice to the defendants asking them to come forward to full-fill the terms of Ex.A.1/sale agreement entered into between them. The trial court also pointed out that even during the time of recording of the evidence before court, no amount was deposited by the plaintiff in the court towards balance sale consideration. It is also an admitted fact that as per Ex.A.1-sale agreement, 10 years time was given to perform the agreement and the suit has been filed 10 days prior to expiry of 10 years agreement period. However, there is nothing on record to show that during the agreement period of nearly 10 years, any step was taken by the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed. Admittedly, no pre-suit notice was issued to Karuppayi Ammal or her legal heirs. Similarly, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to deposit the balance sale consideration into the bank account of Karuppayi Ammal or into the court. Thus, the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have not established the factum of readiness and willingness through out the agreement period. Hence, the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance. 14. Considering the materials available on record and on careful perusal of the same, this Court does not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the factum of the readiness and willingness through out the agreement period. This court also does not find any material on record to hold that the plaintiffs were always ready with balance consideration and to perform their part of sale agreement. 15. In such circumstances, it is clear that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants/plaintiffs have already been answered by the courts below. In the considered opinion of this court, there is no substance in the substantial questions of law raised for consideration in the second appeal and the same is answered against the appellants/plaintiffs. Hence, this court is of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and therefore, the impugned judgments of the courts below warrant no interference. 16. Hence, this court is of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and therefore, the impugned judgments of the courts below warrant no interference. 16. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2000 passed in A.S. No. 33/1999, by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul. No costs.