three months and obtain the sale deed from the first defendant. As to whether the plaintiff had acted in terms of the sale agreement, it is found that the plaintiff has not established his readiness and willingness with reference to the same. The case of the plaintiff that he had been waiting patiently for the first defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration at the request of the first defendant that he required the suit property for some time, cannot be accepted, particularly, when the plaintiff being the agreement holder. If according to the plaintiff he had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but it is only the first defendant who had been evading to perform his part of the contract, immediately on noticing the abovesaid evasive attitude of the first defendant in not executing the sale deed as per the terms of the sale agreement, the plaintiff should have resorted to immediate action against the first defendant as contemplated under law. On the other hand, the suit had been laid by the plaintiff 21 months after the execution of the sale agreement. That apart, when according to the plaintiff when the original parent deed relating to the suit property had been handed over to him by the deceased Ramachandran, as determined by the courts below, nothing prevented him from executing the draft sale deed and sent to the deceased Ramachandran for his approval and thereby proceed with the culmination of the sale transaction. On the other hand, there is nil material on the part of the plaintiff to evidence his readiness and willingness with reference to the enforcement of the sale agreement i.e. there is nothing to show that the plaintiff had approached the deceased Ramachandran either in person or through letters to come forward and execute the sale deed. Therefore, as found and determined by the court below, absolutely there is no material on the part of the plaintiff evidencing his readiness and willingness in performing his part of the contract. As determined by the courts below, irrespective of the factor as to whether the time is the essence of the contract or not, the agreement holder should always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and obtain the sale deed right from the inception of the sale agreement and considering the abovesaid factors, in toto, as determined by the courts below, when there is a complete lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to go ahead with the sale agreement and when it is further seen that he had approached the court for obtaining the relief of discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance belatedly, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the courts below are found to be wholly justified in negativing the suit laid by the plaintiff and no interference is called for with reference to the abovesaid determination of the courts below.
