JUDGMENT : This Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment dated 21.07.2009 of learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty in O.S.No.25 of 2008. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.25 of 2008. 2. Sri P.Girish Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for appellant and Smt. D.Padmavathi, the learned counsel for respondents submitted their respective arguments. 3. The controversy between the parties is related to an agreement for sale dated 27.06.2005. Before the learned trial Court this unregistered agreement for sale was marked as Ex.A.1 on behalf of the plaintiffs. On the same day between the same parties another document titled as a chit came to be executed as per Ex.A.2. These two documents were executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The contents of the documents and the execution of the documents have not been in dispute. After noticing the contents of these documents, it is appropriate to consider the rival claims. The agreement for sale refers to five items of immovable properties and the schedule appended to the agreement for sale gives full descriptive particulars to these immovable properties. Under the agreement for sale the defendant/appellant agreed to sell 2/3rd share of him in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, in favour of both the plaintiffs he had executed Ex.A.1 as well as Ex.A.2. The total extent of the five items is 60 sarams. Out of them defendant agreed to sell 40.5/2 sarams to plaintiffs. One saram is equal to 270 square feet. Under Ex.A.1 the agreed sale consideration per saram is Rs.45,000/-. However, under Ex.A.2 parties agreed to sell and purchase at the rate of Rs.41,000/-per saram. It is with reference to change of the amount of sale consideration per each saram alone Ex.A.2 was executed between the parties. Other than that change, Ex.A.2 has no effect on Ex.A.1. In these circumstances, it is sufficient to notice all the terms and conditions that are agreed upon between the parties as incorporated in Ex.A.1. The total consideration for 40.5/2 sarams was fixed at Rs.18,30,000/-having been calculated at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per each saram. On the date of execution of Ex.A.1 plaintiffs paid and the defendant received advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The total consideration for 40.5/2 sarams was fixed at Rs.18,30,000/-having been calculated at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per each saram. On the date of execution of Ex.A.1 plaintiffs paid and the defendant received advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. With reference to payment of balance sale consideration and the mutual rights and obligations of parties the rest of the terms incorporated in Ex.A.1 are required to be noticed keenly. Under this agreement plaintiffs agreed to pay Rs.3,57,500/- towards one part of the sale consideration and they agreed to pay it on 15.07.2005 and after making such payment they must obtain a receipt from the defendant. The other term incorporated in Ex.A.1 is with reference to the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.13,72,500/-. Plaintiffs had agreed to pay the said balance sale consideration within six months from the date of Ex.A.1 dated 27.06.2005. Thus, the outer date fixed for payment of Rs.13,72,500/- was fixed at 27.12.2005. Ex.A.1 reads that defendant on receiving such balance sale consideration within six months from the date of Ex.A.1 would along with his mother execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. It is further recited in Ex.A.1 that if the plaintiffs failed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.13,72,500/- within the time prescribed, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- that was received as advance sale consideration stands forfeited in favour of the defendant. It is further recited that the plaintiffs would not get any rights over the agreement schedule property. It is then recited in Ex.A.1 that if the plaintiffs pay that remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.13,72,500/- within the time prescribed and if the defendant failed to attend for registration of regular registered sale deed or if the defendant refused to receive such balance sale consideration, then the plaintiffs are entitled to deposit the said balance sale consideration into Court and obtain a regular registered sale deed from the Court and recover the litigation expenses from the defendant. 4. Alleging breach of conditions of agreement for sale on part of the defendant, the plaintiffs presented their plaint on 25. 10.2007 and it was registered by the learned trial Court on 29.10.2007. The plaint narrates the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2. At paragraph No.3 of the plaint it is mentioned that the property belonged to the defendant and accordingly he executed the agreement for sale. 10.2007 and it was registered by the learned trial Court on 29.10.2007. The plaint narrates the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2. At paragraph No.3 of the plaint it is mentioned that the property belonged to the defendant and accordingly he executed the agreement for sale. Throughout the plaint plaintiffs have mentioned the calculations of amounts as per Ex.A.1 wherein per saram the agreed sale consideration is Rs.45,000/- and also furnished calculations of sale consideration in terms of Ex.A.2 whereunder the sale consideration was modified and was fixed at Rs.41,000/- per saram. At paragraph No.4 plaint alleges that the first payment of Rs.3,16,832/- was to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant on or before 15.07.2005 and the defendant had to receive it and had to measure the plaint schedule property and fix the boundary stones. That the plaintiffs offered to pay the amount to the defendant and requested the defendant for measurements of property and for fixation of boundary stones. That the defendant did not agree to receive the said amount and did not agree to measure the property and fix the boundary stones and the defendant demanded Rs.3,57,500/- which is on a calculation of Rs.45,000/- per saram fixed under Ex.A.1 and not under Ex.A.2. The plaint then narrates the exchange of notices between parties that commenced with the first notice from plaintiffs issued on 22.08.2005. It further states that plaintiffs also issued a third notice dated 20.12.2005 demanding the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration as agreed upon between the parties which stands at Rs.15,67,332/- and informed him that the plaintiffs would be waiting at the Sub-Registrar’s Office at Rayachoty on 27.12.2005 from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The defendant received this notice only on 03.01.2006. He did not issue any reply notice. Defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. Several mediations were held through village elders, but they did not yield any result. That the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. That they are willing to deposit the balance sale consideration either as per calculations of Ex.A.1 or as per calculations of Ex.A.2. Several mediations were held through village elders, but they did not yield any result. That the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. That they are willing to deposit the balance sale consideration either as per calculations of Ex.A.1 or as per calculations of Ex.A.2. It is with these allegations they made the prayer in the suit which reads as below: “1) Directing the defendant to receive the balance of amount and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 2/3rd of the suit schedule property within the time fixed by the Hon’ble Court and if the defendant fails to do so, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and deliver the property to the plaintiffs as per law. 2) Directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit. 3) and pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the suit in the interest of Justice.” 5. Defendant filed his written statement admitting execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2. It is mentioned that Ex.A.2 chit was executed only for the convenience of plaintiffs and not at the willingness of the defendant. It is categorically stated that the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the contract and that they have not been ready to perform their part of the contract and that they had no financial capacity to perform the same. That the agreement for sale or the chit do not have any term incorporated about obligation of the defendant to measure the property and fix the boundary stones. Agreement contains the boundaries and the notice issued by the plaintiffs contains the boundaries and the question of further measuring the properties and fixation of boundaries does not arise. Only to overcome the failures on part of the plaintiffs, they have dodged the matter for more than 2 ½ years and filed the suit belatedly. That the suit is barred by limitation. There was never mediation through village elders or anyone and plaintiffs failed even to mention the names of panchayatdars who allegedly held the mediation. The plaintiffs never approached the defendant. That the suit is barred by limitation. There was never mediation through village elders or anyone and plaintiffs failed even to mention the names of panchayatdars who allegedly held the mediation. The plaintiffs never approached the defendant. On the other hand, it is this defendant who was approaching the plaintiffs personally and through the mediators to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain the registered sale deed in terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs have procrastinated the issue since the values of the properties went down in that area. Now that as the value of the properties raised, the plaintiffs have come up with these false allegations. That the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of it. 6. On considering the rival contentions and the material on record, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to insist upon the defendant to sell away the property at the rate of Rs.41,000/- per saram instead of Rs.45,000/- per saram as agreed in the agreement dated 27.06.2005 or not? 2. Whether the boundaries and measurements of the suit schedule property were already fixed by the time of the agreement, dated 27.06.2005 or not? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have been all along ready and willing to perform their part of contract as per the terms of the agreement, dated 27.06.2005? 4. Whether the plaintiffs filed this suit because of price hike over the suit schedule property or not? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of specific performance of agreement? 6. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled for? 7. Both sides led their evidence. First plaintiff testified as PW.1. Father-in-law of second plaintiff testified as PW.2 to prove execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2. To prove that defendant refused to receive balance sale consideration and refused to execute a registered sale deed and that a panchayat of elders was conducted, PW.3 and PW.4 testified. The original agreement for sale is Ex.A.1 and the original chit is Ex.A.2 and Exs.A.3 to A.10 are to show the exchange of notices and Exs.A.11 to A.20 are filed to show that the plaintiffs even had enough money in their bank accounts at the relevant time. As against that, the sole defendant testified as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 8. As against that, the sole defendant testified as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 8. The prime contention argued before the trial Court on behalf of the defendant was that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations. That argument was sought to be sustained on a reasoning that at the relevant time of Ex.A.1-agreement for sale though a fair sale consideration was settled between parties, soon thereafter there was reduction in prices of immovable properties in that area and the plaintiffs were unwilling to proceed further and only after the prices started raising once again, the plaintiffs came forward with false litigation and the correspondence indulged in is only to cover up their laches and to make someone to believe as if they have been ready while in truth and substance they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations in terms of the agreement for sale. On considering the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court agreed with the case of plaintiffs and observed that the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations and that the same could be seen from issuance of notice within a short period after the first fixed date for payment and that the demand of the plaintiffs in asking the defendant to measure the property and then receive the remaining balance sale consideration is not unreasonable since it could not be said that it is possible to obtain possession without there being boundary stones fixed after taking due measurements. While reaching to its conclusions in granting the relief of specific performance, the learned trial Court, while answering its issues, had stated that Ex.A.1-agreement for sale does not contain any stipulation for cancellation after a specified date and defendant did not issue any notice indicating that Ex.A.1 stood cancelled. While reaching to its conclusions in granting the relief of specific performance, the learned trial Court, while answering its issues, had stated that Ex.A.1-agreement for sale does not contain any stipulation for cancellation after a specified date and defendant did not issue any notice indicating that Ex.A.1 stood cancelled. It is in those circumstances, it decreed the suit in the following terms: “In the result, the suit is hereby decreed with costs and the defendant is hereby directed to receive the balance of sale consideration from the plaintiffs i.e., Rs.17,30,000/- and to measure the suit schedule property and fix the boundaries for the property sold to the plaintiffs and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and deliver possession of the property to the plaintiffs within sixty days from the date of this judgment and decree, failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to get it done through the process of the Court.” 9. Aggrieved defendant preferred this appeal impugning the said judgment. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, it is urged that there was misappreciation of facts and evidence on part of the trial Court and it failed to construe the terms of Ex.A.1 in their true and legal perspective. It is further mentioned that under Ex.A.1 there is no written stipulation agreed upon between parties obligating the defendant to measure the property and fix the boundary stones and the plaintiffs on their own invented such a story only to cover up their laches and while the evidence is crystal clear in that regard, the learned trial Court not only failed to appreciate properly but also passed a judgment and decree containing a direction to the defendant/appellant to measure the property and fix the boundary stones which was never a condition incorporated in Ex.A.1 and not a prayer in the plaint. That the agreement itself is crystal clear that it is not the entire property that was agreed to be sold and the defendant agreed to sell only 2/3rd share out of the plaint schedule property and the remaining part was to be retained by the defendant and his mother and the plaintiffs having agreed to purchase in that way the undivided share there was no obligation for measurements being taken and boundary stones being fixed. PW.2 to PW.4 are related to plaintiffs and are interested witnesses and their evidence could not be given undue weight. It is also mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the mother of the defendant being joint owner of the property ought to have been joined as a party but the plaintiffs did not choose to implead her and therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and Ex.A.1 could not be enforced in the absence of such necessary party. 10. During the arguments, the learned counsel for appellant urged that the evidence of PW.1 and his earlier correspondence in the form of notices would by themselves indicate serious discrepancies and on considering such discrepancies, one could find that the plaintiffs have not been ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations at the relevant time. Ex.A.1-agreement for sale contains forfeiture of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the light of such agreed term, one should construe that the agreement stood cancelled when the plaintiffs failed to pay the first installment of the balance sale consideration within time. From the reply notices issued on behalf of the defendant/appellant and from the evidence of DW.1, one would clearly notice that the time stipulations mentioned in Ex.A.1 are very important and they could be considered the time was essence of the contract. In violation of all that the learned trial judge decreed the suit and the learned counsel urges to upset it. 11. As against it, the learned counsel for respondents/ plaintiffs urged that Ex.A.1-agreement for sale and Ex.A.2-chit hold good and their contents are undisputed between parties and as per those terms and as per the subsequent conduct of appellant/defendant, there is no repudiation of Ex.A.1 or Ex.A.2 and the fact that agreed sale consideration per saram as per Ex.A.1 is Rs.45,000/- and as per Ex.A.2 is Rs.41,000/- and that the bargain having been settled plaintiffs have been offering the defendant/appellant to receive the balance sale consideration. Despite that, he was refusing to receive and register the sale deed. Learned counsel further urged that entire balance sale consideration was deposited on obtaining the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the deposit was made by offering the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per saram as stipulated in Ex.A.1. Despite that, he was refusing to receive and register the sale deed. Learned counsel further urged that entire balance sale consideration was deposited on obtaining the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the deposit was made by offering the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per saram as stipulated in Ex.A.1. The contention of appellant that the time is essence of the contract is only raised for the purpose of appeal and it was never part of the term in Ex.A.1 and it was not considered as an issue before the trial Court and learned counsel argued that about non-joinder of necessary party the contention raised in the grounds of appeal was as not part of the pleadings and was not an issue and such a fact cannot be raised for the first time in the first appeal. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court very judiciously considered the facts and evidence and rightly followed the law and appropriately granted the judgment and decree and its judgment cannot be called as perverse and therefore, there could be no warrant for interference in this appeal. 12. On considering the rival submissions and the entire evidence on record and the judgment impugned, the following points fall for consideration: 1. Whether breach of Ex.A.1 was on the part of respondents/plaintiffs or the appellant/defendant? 2. In the light of terms of Ex.A.1 and the contentions raised by both sides that the time stipulations in Ex.A.1 have any relevance or they have to be ignored? 3. On a total consideration of the entire case, could it be said that respondents/plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations but the appellant/defendant unreasonably refused to perform his part of the obligations? Point Nos.1 to 3: 13. Sale and purchase of immovable properties is a common phenomenon in society. Conveying title and possession by way of a registered sale deed need not necessarily be preceded by any agreement for sale. However, it is also quite common that the vendor and purchaser take between themselves an agreement for sale and thereafter a regular registered sale deed. It is not unreasonable to think that a vendor does not want entire sale consideration at once and does not want execution of a registered conveyance on receiving the entire sale consideration at once. However, it is also quite common that the vendor and purchaser take between themselves an agreement for sale and thereafter a regular registered sale deed. It is not unreasonable to think that a vendor does not want entire sale consideration at once and does not want execution of a registered conveyance on receiving the entire sale consideration at once. Every conveyance or an agreement for sale is always preceded by some oral bargain between parties and on reaching consensus they would reduce the same in the form of an agreement for sale. In the case at hand, Ex.A.1 is the agreement for sale dated 27.06.2005. The outer limit for completion of mutual obligations and for obtaining a registered sale deed was fixed in it by mentioning six months as a period which expired by 27.12.2005. While so, the purchasers filed their plaint on 25.10.2007. It cannot be disputed and in fact it was not disputed in this appeal that the suit was laid well within the period of three years in terms of Article 54 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act in whichever way the time is computed. The pleadings and evidence on both sides and the observations of the trial Court clearly indicate that the total agreed sale consideration is Rs.18,30,000/-. Under Ex.A.1, plaintiffs paid and defendant/appellant received Rs.1,00,000/-on the date of Ex.A.1 which is 27.06.2005. By the time the suit was filed only that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and received. Thus, a fraction of consideration alone was paid and the major part of the consideration did not flow from one hand to the other. It is disputed before the trial Court as well as here as to whether appellant refused to receive or the respondents/plaintiffs did not really pay or did not even offer to pay any part of the balance sale consideration. Before we go further it is to be noticed that as per Ex.A.1 the balance sale consideration was to be paid at two stages. Rs.3,57,500/- was to be paid on or before 15.07.2005. The next stage is for payment of Rs.13,72,500/- on or before 27.12.2005. What is to be seen is it is to whose benefit time stipulations for payment of balance sale consideration had come to be agreed between parties. Is it a facility afforded to purchaser/appellant or is it a facility provided for owner of the property/respondents/plaintiffs. The next stage is for payment of Rs.13,72,500/- on or before 27.12.2005. What is to be seen is it is to whose benefit time stipulations for payment of balance sale consideration had come to be agreed between parties. Is it a facility afforded to purchaser/appellant or is it a facility provided for owner of the property/respondents/plaintiffs. While Ex.A.1 is silent and pleadings are silent and evidence is silent on this aspect of the matter, it strikes to commonsense that when a vendor was not paid the entire sale consideration at once, it only signifies that the purchaser wanted to avail some time to pass on the sale consideration. It could never be disputed that when parties agreed to pay and receive balance sale consideration in certain installments, it surely serves the benefit to the purchasers who had to muster their funds to accomplish the sale deed. Viewed in that angle, the timelines contained in an agreement for sale are obligations undertaken by the purchasers. Therefore, the purchasers must abide by the timelines. An agreement for sale is a contract. A contract contains terms and conditions. The terms and conditions contained in a contract are products of volition on part of the parties. What all the parties have incorporated in an agreement for sale is law between the parties and must be strictly complied with and any excuses offered must be construed first on the basis of the terms agreed between the parties and second in terms of the equity and law. Viewing the controversy in the above perspective, the matter must be considered. Ex.A.1 containing five items of immovable property shows that the executant/defendant/appellant agreed to convey 2/3rd share right in all those items of property in favour of plaintiffs. The executant has mentioned in Ex.A.1 that on receiving sale consideration the executant would come along with his mother and execute a registered sale deed in favour of purchasers or to their nominees. It is not in dispute that the executant and his mother together owned these properties. It is also not in dispute that the mother of executant is not a signatory to Ex.A.1. It is also not in dispute that she is not even a witness or an attestor to Ex.A.1. It is not in dispute that the executant and his mother together owned these properties. It is also not in dispute that the mother of executant is not a signatory to Ex.A.1. It is also not in dispute that she is not even a witness or an attestor to Ex.A.1. Evidence of executant/DW.1 makes it clear that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1-agreement for sale which are also mentioned in the plaint schedule are boundaries for the entire extent of the property in each of the items and those boundaries are not boundaries for the agreed 2/3rd share. It is in the light of these facts when one looks at Ex.A.1, it is very clear and PW.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.A.1 does not contain any obligation on part of defendant to measure the property and fix the boundary stones and then execute the registered sale deed. 14. Ex.A.1 does not contain any clause concerning repudiation or cancellation of this agreement on occurrence of an event. The reply notice issued by the defendant/appellant did not indicate that the agreement was repudiated by him. The fact that plaintiffs being other parties to this agreement had sued for specific performance is indicative that they considered the agreement subsisting. Thus, for the purpose of law Ex.A.1-agreement for sale was subsisting and it was not repudiated. 15. There is a clause in Ex.A.1 for forfeiture of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per its terms this forfeiture clause is recorded with reference to failure to pay Rs.13,72,500/- which is the second and final payment that was to be made by the plaintiffs. One has also to see that prior to this payment there was another payment that was agreed upon. Ex.A.1 stipulated that on or before 15.07.2005 the plaintiffs had to pay Rs.3,57,500/-. Ex.A.1 does not mention any consequence such as forfeiture in the event of plaintiffs failing to pay this installment of Rs.3,57,500/- within time. How it has to be construed is one important question. Does this mean that the plaintiffs so impressed the defendant that without any deviation they would make such payment. Be it noted, only three weeks time was granted for this payment from the date of Ex.A.1. Viewed in the facts and circumstances, it proved that defendant needed that much of part sale consideration so soon from the date of Ex.A.1. Does this mean that the plaintiffs so impressed the defendant that without any deviation they would make such payment. Be it noted, only three weeks time was granted for this payment from the date of Ex.A.1. Viewed in the facts and circumstances, it proved that defendant needed that much of part sale consideration so soon from the date of Ex.A.1. As against first installment payment, the larger time is granted for the second installment of payment. With reference to this second installment, defendant had mentioned that if he refused to receive this money and refused to execute registered sale deed the plaintiffs were at liberty to deposit the same into Court and sue him and obtain the registered sale deed and costs for such litigation. 16. The trouble between parties started with reference to first installment payment of Rs.3,57,500/- itself. The date for payment is on or before 15.07.2005. What happened to that is to be considered now. Ex.A.3 is the first of the notices between parties and this was sent on behalf of the plaintiffs by his counsel. This notice is dated 22.08.2005. Thus, from the stipulated date of 15.07.2005 it was about five weeks thereafter this first notice was sent by plaintiffs. In this notice it is mentioned that one week prior to 15.07.2005 plaintiffs approached defendant and offered to pay Rs.3,16,832/- at the rate of Rs.41,000/- per saram (As per Ex.A.2-chit) and the plaintiffs also requested the defendant to take the measurements of the property and fix the boundary stones. This notice alleges that defendant did not agree for both the things. As per Ex.A.3-notice, the objection raised by the defendant was that he was demanding this installment payment to be paid at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per saram (as agreed in Ex.A.1). This notice alleges that the defendant by doing so violated the terms and conditions. By this notice plaintiffs called upon the defendant to measure and fix the boundary stones and receive the balance sale consideration at two installments after remitting it in terms of Ex.A.2-chit agreement. This notice further states that if the defendant did not do it plaintiffs would be obliged to file a suit for specific performance. This is the crux of the dispute between the parties. 17. This notice further states that if the defendant did not do it plaintiffs would be obliged to file a suit for specific performance. This is the crux of the dispute between the parties. 17. On analysis of contents of Ex.A.3, the following features emerged: As per Ex.A.3 both the plaintiffs met the defendant one week prior to 15.07.2005 and offered money. This notice has not disclosed the exact date of such meeting between them. Thus, inferentially it can be said that the plaintiffs met the defendant on 08.07.2005. In this regard, the evidence of PW.1 in his examination-in-chief is that the plaintiffs requested the defendant to receive that part of the sale consideration as per Ex.A.2 and make measurements and fix the boundaries but he did not accept and refused to do it. Examination-in-chief of PW.1 is absolutely silent as to when did they met the defendant. It neither mentioned the date nor mentioned the number of days earlier to the fixed date. It also does not show where did they meet the defendant. It also does not show who was present when such offer and denial took place between the parties. Thus, PW.1 left it vague. A party witness is expected to be specific in details. Persons litigious in nature alone would leave the details so as to raise a controversy. Be that as it may. On behalf of the defendant, PW.1 was questioned in cross during which time PW.1 categorically stated that on 14.07.2005 they offered the first installment to the defendant and he refused to receive. According to him, on 16.07.2005 the defendant left for Ballary. Thus, on 15.07.2005 he was in Tsundupalli where the properties are located. As per Ex.A.1, the date for payment of this first installment is 15.07.2005 and PW.1 met the defendant on 14.07.2005 which is one day earlier to the fixed date. This evidence of PW.1 stands opposed to his own earlier statement contained in Ex.A.3-notice whereunder they mentioned that they met the defendant a week earlier which means on 08.07.2005. Thus, the date of offer of payment of first installment of balance sale consideration is not proved to the satisfaction of a Court of law in the context of the nature of controversy raised before a Court of law. 18. Thus, the date of offer of payment of first installment of balance sale consideration is not proved to the satisfaction of a Court of law in the context of the nature of controversy raised before a Court of law. 18. The next point to be seen from Ex.A.3-notice sent by the respondents/plaintiffs to the appellant/defendant is the demand on part of the plaintiffs in asking the defendant to measure the property and fix the boundary stones. In the first place, taking measurements of the property and fixing boundary stones is not one of the conditions agreed upon between the parties under Ex.A.1 or under Ex.A.2. There was no subsequent agreement entered into between parties containing any such stipulation for measurements and boundary stones. As one reads from Ex.A.3-notice it is clear that it was a demand for the first time raised by the plaintiffs. This notice does not even indicate any assertion on part of the plaintiffs that on earlier occasion the defendant agreed to measure the property and fix the boundary stones. Thus, the plaintiffs raised an issue that was never agreed upon between parties and basing on such new issue raised by them when it was denied by the defendant, they started contending that they are ready and willing to have the contract performed, but the defendant is refusing to perform his part of the obligation. Since Exs.A.1 and A.2 did not obligate the defendant to measure the property and fix the boundary stones, his refusal to measure and fix boundaries cannot be termed as his violation of Exs.A.1 and A.2. For the first time at para No.4 of the plaint it is alleged that an understanding was arrived at between both parties whereunder the defendant had agreed to measure the property and fix the boundary stones. That was reiterated by PW.1 in his examination-in-chief. Thus, while the understandings between the parties were reduced into writing under Exs.A.1 and A.2, this alleged understanding was never reduced into writing. The date on which such alleged understanding took place and the place at which it took place and the persons in whose presence it took place is not disclosed in the plaint or in the evidence of PW.1. In the absence of such details, one must say that the plaintiffs have pleaded known falsehood. To overcome this hurdle, the conscious plaintiff examined PW.2. In the absence of such details, one must say that the plaintiffs have pleaded known falsehood. To overcome this hurdle, the conscious plaintiff examined PW.2. He is one of the attestors to Ex.A.1. He stated in his evidence in chief about such understanding arrived at between parties. He did not explain as to why such understanding arrived at between the parties the same was not incorporated in Ex.A.1 or Ex.A.2. In his cross-examination he came out categorically saying that between the parties in his presence there was no discussion about measurements and fixation of boundary stones to be fixed by the defendant. Thus, the evidence makes it very clear that on a non-existing term plaintiffs have been contending and consuming time. In other words, the conduct of the plaintiffs by resorting to such contentions shows that they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at the material point of time. 19. Ex.A.1 makes it clear that the plaintiffs agreed to purchase undivided 2/3rd share of the plaint schedule property. If that be the case, what was the occasion for them to demand for measurements and demarcation of boundaries. The contention raised by the appellant/defendant that the plaintiffs would become joint owners along with him and his mother to the extent of 2/3rd share and that was the purport of Ex.A.1 is a plausible argument that cannot be ignored or negatived. 20. Even if it is to be taken that there is always a need for taking measurements and fixing boundaries as opined by the trial Court, when would that occasion occur is to be considered. This fact must be considered in the context of stipulated terms agreed upon between the parties under Ex.A.1. Is it not reasonable to think that the plaintiffs had to first pay the first installment of the remaining balance sale consideration on or before 15.07.2005 and then ask the defendant to measure the properties and fix the boundary stones and receive the balance sale consideration. 21. Having expressed their desire to sue for specific performance as mentioned in Ex.A.3-notice dated 22.08.2005 plaintiffs did not sue at any time soon thereafter but filed the suit more than two years thereafter on 25.10.2007. Mere indulgence in further correspondence cannot be called as a ground for consuming so much time. 21. Having expressed their desire to sue for specific performance as mentioned in Ex.A.3-notice dated 22.08.2005 plaintiffs did not sue at any time soon thereafter but filed the suit more than two years thereafter on 25.10.2007. Mere indulgence in further correspondence cannot be called as a ground for consuming so much time. The refusal to perform the contract on part of the defendant was to the knowledge of the plaintiffs even by 15.07.2005 and nothing prevented them to sue the defendant soon thereafter. It is clear, one has to see that the case of the defendant is that prices were low at that point of time and therefore to dodge the issue plaintiffs were creating the correspondence and only when the prices have once again raised they sued for specific performance. Though there is no perceptible evidence concerning fall in prices and raise in prices, the contention raised by the defendant cannot be simply brushed aside as it seems to fit in within the context of facts that are clearly available on record. That the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit or thereafter holding money to perform their part of the contract is no explanation to say that they had money and were willing and ready to perform their part of the contract on 15.07.2005 and immediately thereafter. PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he had not furnished any proof to show that the plaintiffs had Rs.3,57,500/- with them or Rs.3,16,832/- with them on or before 15.07.2005. What prevented them to furnish their proof remained unexplained. There are no questions of law involved in all this. It is a matter of fact that has to be scrutinized and truth has to be found. The argument that the plaintiffs need not deposit the money and that the time is not the essence of the contract and the ruling cited in that regard gain their relevance only if what happened on or before 15.07.2005 is clear. As the discussion mentioned above made it clear that the plaintiffs failed in all respects in discharging their obligations by them one must necessarily conclude that they have not been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. When the fault is with them, they cannot claim that the defendant/appellant is at fault. 22. As the discussion mentioned above made it clear that the plaintiffs failed in all respects in discharging their obligations by them one must necessarily conclude that they have not been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. When the fault is with them, they cannot claim that the defendant/appellant is at fault. 22. Alagammal; Palaniammal; Mariammal; Pattayee Ammal; Karupparaj; Lakshmi; Thangam; Maruthambal v. Ganesan; Magudeeswari, 2024 LawSuit(SC) 27 is cited by learned counsel for appellant. The matter before their Lordships was concerning suit for specific performance. Their Lordships referred to earlier precedent and made specific reference to K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1 . Their Lordships held that irrespective of the fact whether the time is essence of the contract or not if the agreement for sale parties stipulated timelines Courts of law cannot disregard those stipulations and they must give due significance to those timelines which have been agreed upon between the parties themselves. 23. Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha, (2005) 7 SCC 534 (cited for respondents/plaintiffs). Their Lordships were considering a case about readiness and willingness on part of plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance and the solemnity of the terms and conditions and as to how the Courts of law must construe the timelines and when they can be considered as time is essence of the contract and when they need not. While referring to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, their Lordships had categorically stated that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemish less throughout entitling him to the specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant relief based on the conduct of the person seeking relief. Viewed from this legal perspective, the facts at hand, as discussed in the earlier paragraphs of the present judgment, disentitled the plaintiffs from obtaining a decree for specific performance since the conduct of the plaintiffs was with blemish as they were demanding the defendant to do something that was not part of the contract and about which there was never an understanding. 24. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs cited Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Hari Dutt Shastri, AIR 1977 SC 1005 . 24. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs cited Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Hari Dutt Shastri, AIR 1977 SC 1005 . Their Lordships held that mere fixation of the period within which the contract has to be performed does not make the stipulation as to time the essence of the contract. When a contract relates to sale of immovable property it will normally be presumed that the time is not the essence of the contract. The intention to treat time as the essence of the contract may be evidenced by circumstances which are sufficiently strong to displace the normal presumption that in a contract of sale of land stipulation as to time is not the essence of the contract. 25. As against that, the learned counsel for appellant/defendant cited Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, (2023) 3 SCC 714 . That is a case where their Lordships referred to Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC 18 . The purport of the observations are that a purchaser can no longer take shelter under the principle that time is not of essence in performance of contracts relating to immovable property, to cover his delays, laches, breaches and non-readiness. In these days of galloping increase in prices of immovable properties, to hold that a vendor who took only an earnest money of about 10% of the sale price and agreed for specific timelines for performance, did not intend that time should be the essence, will be a cruel joke on him, and will result in injustice. Their Lordships further held saying that the precedents from an era, when high inflation was unknown, holding that time is not of the essence of the contract in regard to immovable properties, may no longer apply, not because the principle laid down therein is unsound or erroneous, but the circumstances that existed when the said principle was evolved, no longer exist. Adding to the misery is the delay in disposal of cases relating to specific performance, as suits and appeals therefrom routinely take two to three decades to attain finality. As a result, an owner agreeing to sell a property for Rs.1,00,000/- and received Rs.10,000/- as advance may be required to execute a sale deed a quarter century later by receiving the remaining Rs.90,000/-, when the property value has risen to a crore of rupees. As a result, an owner agreeing to sell a property for Rs.1,00,000/- and received Rs.10,000/- as advance may be required to execute a sale deed a quarter century later by receiving the remaining Rs.90,000/-, when the property value has risen to a crore of rupees. When the above two rulings are seen in juxtaposition, the change of judicial attitude towards timelines agreed upon between parties and the need of adherence to those timelines of parties and the way the dispute has to be resolved in such context changed in a great measure. However, I must make it clear that in the present appeal the principle followed is that the order of performance of obligations on part of the parties to the contract in the context of aspect relating to readiness and willingness. Having found that at the material point of time the plaintiffs/respondents were not ready and willing to perform the contract, this Court is inclined to disagree with the judgment of the trial Court and in this conspectus only it had stated that adherence to timelines is a matter of clear obligation of parties. Question of giving some allowance for plaintiffs with reference to timelines do not arise since the plaintiffs were acting against to the terms of the contract demanding the opposite party to do something that was never agreed upon between themselves. Therefore, rest of the precedent cited at the bar concerning about time as essence of the contract do not require any enunciation here. This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the trial Court failed on vital aspects in appreciating the terms of the contract and the evidence produced before it in that regard. Record clearly establishes failure on part of plaintiffs in performing their part of the obligations. All the points are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 26. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2009 of learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty in O.S.No.25 of 2008 is set aside and the said suit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.