ORDER : The appellants are defendants in O.S.No.207 of 2016 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the respondents is plaintiff in the said suit. O.S.No.207 of 2016 was filed for recovery of money with interest, basing on a sale agreement executed by the appellants herein in favour of the plaintiff and in view of the failure of the defendants to execute sale deed, the respondent/plaintiff sought for recovery of advance money paid to the appellants/defendants. 2. The appellants herein have contested the suit and the trial Court disposed the same by judgment and decree dated 20.11.2017 directing the appellants herein to pay Rs.12,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the amount was realized. The present appeal is filed assailing the said judgment. 3. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court failed to see that the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. There was a specific clause in agreement by which vendee shall pay the balance in installments in every alternative month and default of payment the agreement shall stand cancelled. But the Court below erroneously passed decree in favour of the respondent who in fact failed to perform his part of contract. They have also claimed that at the first instance they got issued legal notice to the respondent/plaintiff asking him to perform his part of contract. But the respondent/plaintiff failed to do so. Thereby, the appellant sought for setting aside the judgment and decree. 4. As could be seen from the material papers including the judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that there was an agreement between the parties for the sale of a flat i.e., flat No.201 of premises No.8-1-40/A/92 at Tolichowk, Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- and he paid Rs.12,00,000/- towards advance while agreeing to pay the balance on the date of execution of the sale deed. The respondent/plaintiff has claimed that he paid the above said Rs.12,00,000/- on various dates through cheques which were issued in the name of defendant No.1 i.e., appellant No.1 herein. The appellant agreed to hand over the flat within a period of 6 months from the date of contract. But they failed to do so. The respondent/plaintiff has claimed that he paid the above said Rs.12,00,000/- on various dates through cheques which were issued in the name of defendant No.1 i.e., appellant No.1 herein. The appellant agreed to hand over the flat within a period of 6 months from the date of contract. But they failed to do so. The respondent/plaintiff has further claimed that he approached the appellant herein on number of occasions with a request to perform their part of contract, but they failed to do so. However, on 15.12.2014 the defendant No.1 i.e., appellant No.1 herein got issued legal notice calling upon the respondent/plaintiff to come forward for obtaining the registration of the flat by payment of balance sale consideration. 5. It was the case of the respondent that soon after receiving the notice, he approached the appellant herein and he was informed that notice was wrongly issued. They promised that they would deliver the possession of the flat within two (2) month, thereby, he continuously requested the appellant herein to finish the construction work hand over the flat as they failed to do so, he fled suit and sought for return of the advance amount which he paid at the time of entering into the agreement together with interest. 6. The appellant herein opposed the said plea and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. However, they did not dispute the agreement of sale for the sale of flat. But they further pleaded that there was no agreement to complete the construction and delivery of flat within 6 months as alleged in the plaint. They have also pleaded that they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract, but the respondent/plaintiff was not ready for obtaining sale deed. The appellant herein through their counsel informed that they have sold the flat in view of the failure of the respondent/plaintiff to perform his part of contract. The trial Court framed 3 issues as follows : 1. Whether the plaintiff enter the agreement of sale to the defendants for purchasing of the flat No.201, 2nd floor, admeasuing 1062 sq.feet with un-divided shares 20 sq.yards out of 200 sq.yards for total sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/- as stated in the plaint is correct or not ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the defendant on various dates as stated by the plaintiff is correct or not ? 3. 2. Whether the plaintiff is paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the defendant on various dates as stated by the plaintiff is correct or not ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- against the defendants together with interest @12% per annum as prayed for ? 7. During the trial, the plaintiff was examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. DWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the defendant i.e., appellant herein. The trial Court accepted the claim of respondent/plaintiff and passed decree as stated above. 8. I have heard both parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent/plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. There was failure on the part of respondent to obtain sale deed. In fact, the appellant herein got issued legal notice asking the respondent to come forward for obtaining sale deed. As per the agreement, the respondent/plaintiff is supposed to pay consideration in every alternative month. Since the respondent failed to pay the amount as per the agreement it stand cancelled and the appellant need not pay any amount to the plaintiff, but the Court below passed decree against the appellant, thereby he sought for setting aside the judgment and decree. 10. Now the point for consideration is : 1. Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount ? 2. Whether the judgment and decree are liable to set aside as prayed for ? 11. POINTS : Appellant herein did not dispute the agreement by which they agreed to sell their flat to the respondent/plaintiff. Similarly, they did not dispute the receipt of Rs.12,00,000/- by way of different cheques towards advance in pursuance of the agreement. It may be true that they got issued notice in the first instance. But that itself does not absolve their liability to complete the transaction. 12. As rightly observed by the Court below, there is no forfeiture clause in the agreement, thereby the appellant herein cannot claim that they are entitled to forfeit the advance amount which they receive from the respondent/plaintiff even if they failed execute sale deed. 13. According to the agreement the appellant herein are under the obligation to complete the construction and made the flat ready for executing the sale deed. The appellant herein could not complete their obligation. 13. According to the agreement the appellant herein are under the obligation to complete the construction and made the flat ready for executing the sale deed. The appellant herein could not complete their obligation. The respondent/plaintiff filed photographs showing the failure of the appellant herein in completing the construction. The appellant have pleaded that those photographs were obtained at an earlier date, but they failed to produce any proof in support of their claim that they have completed construction and made the flat ready before due date. Even though the respondent/plaintiff did not issue any notice expressing his readiness and willingness to obtained sale deed, the documents placed by him clearly shows that there was failure on the part of the appellant herein in completing the construction. The evidence on record also shows that the appellant have disposed the flat to some other 3rd party. In the absence of any clause for forfeiting the advance amount, even if there is failure by the respondent in obtaining sale deed, the appellants are not entitled to withhold the amount which they have paid under the sale agreement. 14. Therefore, trial Court rightly passed decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, therefore there are no merits in the appeal. It appears the appellant herein moved an interlocutory application seeking stay of operation of the judgment and this Court directed the appellant to pay half of the decreetal amount and the record shows that they have complied the said condition. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs and the appellant herein shall pay the balance sale consideration after deducting the amount that was paid after obtaining the stay from this Court within one month. 16. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.