agreement is not in dispute. On a perusal of Ex.A1 sale agreement and the terms contained thereof, it is evident that as put forth by the defendants, the parties had agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,92,500/- should be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants within 6 months from the date of the sale agreement and in the event of the plaintiff paying the balance sale consideration within the abovesaid stipulated time, the defendants are obliged to execute the sale deeds in favour of the nominees of the plaintiff and accordingly, it is evident as per the terms of the sale agreement of EX.A1, a specific time limit has been fixed by the parties concerned that the transaction should be completed within the period of 6 months from the date of the sale agreement. As above noted, EX.A1 sale agreement was entered on 09.03.2006, therefore, it is evident that as per the terms thereof, the time fixed for the performance of the contract expires on 08.09.2006. Admittedly, even as per the case of the plaintiff, he has not paid the balance amount of Rs.11,92,500/- within the period of 6 months as stipulated under Ex.A1 sale agreement. Materials placed on record go to show that following Ex.A1 sale agreement, the plaintiff has paid a total sum of Rs.6,51,000/- on different dates as could be seen from the endorsements made on the sale agreement Ex.A1 marked as Exs.A2 to A4. Thus, it is found that within the time fixed by the parties, the plaintiff has paid only a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- and not more than that. Though the plaintiff would contend that time is not the essence of the contract, however, when as seen from the contents of Ex.A1 sale agreement, the parties had fixed a particular time limit for completing the performance of the contract, i.e., 6 months from the date of Ex.A1 sale agreement and despite the same, the case of the plaintiff that though time is fixed, the same is not the essence of the contract entered into between the parties, as such, cannot be accepted. Though, normally, time is not the essence of the contract in respect of the immovable properties, but, however, when the parties choose to specify a particular time factor for completing the transaction and accordingly included the terms thereof in the sale agreement entered into between them, it is seen that accordingly, the parties had been very particular that the contract should be performed within the time fixed by them and in such view of the matter, merely because the time is not the essence of the contract in respect of the immovable properties, that by itself, would not apply to all cases as sought to be made out by the plaintiff.
