if time is taken as six months, the plaintiff has issued the notice after one year, which is not as per the agreement and the plaintiff had not taken any steps. In response to that, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that, time is not the essence of the contract, particularly, in respect of the immovable properties and he relied on some judgments that are referred to in the above paragraphs. The Trial Court has also given a specific finding with regard to the loan amount and the loan that is applied is by the father of the plaintiff, but not by the plaintiff. The Court also felt that, prima facie , there is no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff and accordingly, had refused to grant the relief. The legal proposition, as far as, whether the time is the essence of the contract, whether the suit is maintainable or not, whether it is an agreement of sale, whether it is a receipt, whether such a receipt can be taken into consideration, whether it is a stamped one or not, all these aspects have to be decided by the Court during the course of trial. When it comes to the prima facie case, the consideration as per the plaintiff is an amount of ₹90,00,000/-. The plaintiff had paid only an amount of ₹10,000/-. Now, for such a huge sale consideration of an
