JUDGMENT : K. SUJANA, J. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.1637 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present Appeal Suit is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a real estate company, filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005, wherein the defendants (three brothers) agreed to sell five acres of land for Rs.49 lakhs. The plaintiff made an advance payment of Rs.10 lakhs, with the remaining amount to be paid in four installments before 30.06.2006. Over time, the plaintiff paid Rs.44,64,000, leaving a balance of Rs.4,38,000. While the defendants executed registered sale deeds for four acres, Defendant No.1 refused to execute the sale deed for the remaining one acre and later issued a legal notice on 02.07.2006, canceling the agreement, citing the plaintiff’s alleged default. The defendants claimed that there was an understanding to restrict the sale to four acres and that the plaintiff was compensated with 16 guntas of land in another survey number. However, the court found no evidence supporting this claim and determined that the plaintiff had fulfilled its obligations under the contract and was always ready and willing to complete the transaction. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A30 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 4. After considering the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 07.02.2008, decreed the suit holding that the defendant could not unilaterally cancel the agreement and ordered the execution of the sale deed for the remaining one acre upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.4,38,000. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present appeal suit is filed. 5. Heard Sri B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri N.A. Jairaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to law and facts of the case. 5. Heard Sri B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri N.A. Jairaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to law and facts of the case. The trial Court erred in decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, despite the appellants/defendants having specifically pleaded and proved that they had executed and registered sale deeds in respect of their agricultural lands, as agreed upon in the agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence on record, including Ex.A2, Ex.A23, and Ex.A24 to Ex.A28, which clearly established that the appellants/defendants have performed their part of the contract. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court misdirected itself by wrongly fixing the burden of proof on the appellants/defendants and ignoring the pleadings and evidence on record. The trial Court also failed to frame a specific issue regarding the oral settlement arrived at between the parties, which resulted in the appellants/defendants executing and registering a sale deed in respect of their own land, thereby abandoning the claim of the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale. He further contended that the suit laid by the respondent/plaintiff is bad in law due to misjoinder of parties and the trial court's failure to address and decide the rights of the appellants/defendants. The trial Court also erred in decreeing the suit, despite the respondent/plaintiff being indefinite in seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008 by allowing this appeal suit. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed counter denying the allegations leveled against the appellants stating that the application of the appellants seeking leave to urge additional grounds is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any valid reason for seeking to urge additional grounds at this belated stage, nearly 16 years after filing the appeal. He further submitted that attempt by the appellants to seek leave to urge additional grounds are a mere dilatory tactic aimed at delaying the inevitable. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any valid reason for seeking to urge additional grounds at this belated stage, nearly 16 years after filing the appeal. He further submitted that attempt by the appellants to seek leave to urge additional grounds are a mere dilatory tactic aimed at delaying the inevitable. The respondent has already obtained a decree in his favor and has deposited the amount as per the directions of the trial Court. The actions of the appellants are causing undue harassment to the respondent. He contended that the appellants’ grounds are already on record, and the proposed additional grounds are nothing but a repetition of the earlier grounds in different wording and context. This is impermissible, and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the additional grounds are not permitted to be received. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the appellants are not entitled to seek leave to urge additional grounds, as the first appellate Court has the power to scan the entire material on record and decide the appeal on all aspects. The appellants’ application is a blatant attempt to delay and harass the respondent, and the Court should not come to their aid. He further contended that the trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree and there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal suit. 10. Now the points for consideration are: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for? ii. Whether Ex.B3 document is executed for 16 guntas of land in lieu of one acre of remaining land in Ex.A2? iii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court requires interference ? Point Nos. i and ii: 11. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and after perusing the material available on record, it appears that the suit was originally filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005, under which the appellants had entered into an agreement to sell 5 acres of land for a sum of Rs.49 lakhs at the rate of Rs.9,80,000/- per acre. The appellants received a total amount of Rs.44,62,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.4,38,000/- in respect of the land situated in Sy.Nos.254/A and 236. The appellants received a total amount of Rs.44,62,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.4,38,000/- in respect of the land situated in Sy.Nos.254/A and 236. According to the plaintiff, a sale deed was executed for 4 acres of land out of the 5 acres as agreed. However, there was a dispute concerning Sy.No.236, which was later renumbered as Sy.No.255. The Sub-Registrar raised an objection and requested the plaintiff to allow additional time for rectification of the issue concerning the survey number. The plaintiff, therefore, granted time for the execution of the registered sale deed. 12. Subsequently, with the escalation in land prices, the defendant approached the plaintiff demanded 5 lakhs for registration of land. However, the plaintiff did not agree to this, thereby defendant issued a notice on 02.07.2006 informing the plaintiff of the cancellation of the agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005. In response, the plaintiff filed the suit. 13. The grounds of appeal show that, subsequent to the execution of the agreement of sale (Ex.A2), a sale deed for 16 guntas of land from Sy.No.255 was executed in favor of the plaintiff, in lieu of one acre of land covered under the agreement. The appellants contend that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit, despite this fact. 14. First, it is not in dispute that the agreement of sale (Ex.A2) was executed on 30.06.2005, for the purchase of five acres of land from the appellants. As per the agreement, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd installments of Rs.9,75,000/- each were paid. The appellants executed a registered sale deed for four acres in favor of the respondent, as per the terms of the agreement. According to the respondent, the remaining land was not conveyed due to an objection raised by the RDO. The appellants contend that he had already executed a sale deed for 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.255 in lieu of one acre of land covered under the agreement. Therefore, he asserts that the remaining contract was fulfilled. 15. Ex.A2, however, does not mention that 16 guntas of land were agreed to be sold in exchange for one acre of land. The sale deed through which the 16 guntas of land was purchased does not reference the 16 guntas of land as part of the agreement. Therefore, he asserts that the remaining contract was fulfilled. 15. Ex.A2, however, does not mention that 16 guntas of land were agreed to be sold in exchange for one acre of land. The sale deed through which the 16 guntas of land was purchased does not reference the 16 guntas of land as part of the agreement. The appellants claims that the transaction of 16 guntas of land is an independent transaction, and no document has been submitted to show that this land was sold to the respondent in lieu of the one acre of land covered by Ex.A2. 16. The appellants further contends that the trial Court failed to examine Exs.A23 to A28, which contain crucial documents relating to the terms of Ex.A2, and misread the evidence presented in the case. Ex.A24 is a sale deed executed by the appellants in favor of the respondent for land measuring 36 guntas in Sy.Nos.254/R, 255/R. Ex.A25 is a sale deed for 22 guntas in Sy.No.254/R, Ex.A26 is a sale deed for one acre in Sy.No.254/R, Ex.A27 is a sale deed for 0.22 guntas, and Ex.A28 is a sale deed for one acre. These sale deeds demonstrate that the appellants executed registered sale deeds for four acres of land. 17. However, the contention of the appellants that he executed the registered sale deed for 16 guntas in Sy.No.255, as reflected in Ex.B3, is not supported by any recital in the sale deed. The sale deed does not mention that 16 guntas of land were sold to the respondent in lieu of the one acre covered under Ex.A2. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the remaining land was sold to the respondent in fulfillment of the agreement of sale. 18. Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The records indicate that when the appellants demanded an additional payment of Rs.5 lakhs, the respondent refused. Subsequently, the appellants sent a notice for the cancellation of the agreement of sale. The cancellation notice, Ex.A23, indicates that the total sale consideration of Rs.49 lakhs was to be paid by 30.06.2006, but the respondent willfully failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time. As a result, the agreement was cancelled. 19. After the cancellation, the plaintiff filed the suit. The cancellation notice, Ex.A23, indicates that the total sale consideration of Rs.49 lakhs was to be paid by 30.06.2006, but the respondent willfully failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time. As a result, the agreement was cancelled. 19. After the cancellation, the plaintiff filed the suit. The notice for cancellation was issued on 02.07.2006, three days after the expiration of the payment deadline, without any prior notice demanding payment of the balance sale consideration. This suggests that the time was of the essence in the contract, and the failure to make the payment by the respondent was a material breach. 20. The appellants further asserts that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,38,000/-. However, the appellants did not issue any notice demanding payment before sending the legal notice for cancellation. Had the respondent not been willing to pay, the appellants would have been expected to issue a notice demanding the balance amount. 21. The appellants’ claim that the sale consideration for the remaining one acre is Rs.9,75,000/-, and that only half of this amount is still due, is contested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintains that he is ready to pay the balance amount and was willing to go to the registration office to execute the remaining sale deed, but the transaction was not completed due to the objection raised by the RDO. 22. Upon careful consideration, it appears that the appellants failed to take a consistent position regarding the payment and the execution of the sale deed, leading to doubts about the respondent's willingness to perform his part of the contract. The notice for cancellation was issued within three days of the expiration of the deadline without prior communication, which was not in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit. The order of the trial Court is upheld, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Point No.iii: 23. In view of the above discussion in point Nos. i and ii, there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court discussed all the issues and it is a well reasoned judgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment. 24. Point No.iii: 23. In view of the above discussion in point Nos. i and ii, there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court discussed all the issues and it is a well reasoned judgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment. 24. In view thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.1637 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.