Supreme Court reverses judgments, emphasizes contract performance importance. Time not essence. Plaintiff entitled to relief.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court and First Appellate Court's decisions in favor of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized the importance of readiness and willingness to perform a contract, clarified that time was not the essence of the contract, and upheld that the plaintiff had not voluntarily abandoned the contract. The plaintiff was found entitled to relief as she had timely pursued her rights.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
2. Whether time was of the essence of the contract.
3. Whether the plaintiff abandoned the contract voluntarily.
4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitledRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract
The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, holding that the appellant-plaintiff had not established her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: "Whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has established that she has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract." The Supreme Court noted that both lower courts had concluded that the appellant-plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have disturbed the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, as these were based on the appreciation of evidence.

Issue 2: Time as the Essence of the Contract
The High Court's judgment was challenged on the grounds that it was contrary to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that a second appeal can only be entertained if it involves a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court reiterated that time was not the essence of the contract, as concluded by both lower courts. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Chand Rani (Smt.) (Dead) By Lrs. v. Kamal Rani (Smt.)(Dead) By Lrs., which held that in the sale of immovable property, there is no presumption that time is the essence of the contract. The Court also cited K.S. Vidyanadam & Ors. v. Vairavan, which held that even if time is not of the essence, the contract must be performed within a reasonable time.

Issue 3: Voluntary Abandonment of the Contract
The High Court's decision was also challenged on the grounds that it had incorrectly assumed jurisdiction by treating a question of fact as a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of whether the appellant-plaintiff abandoned the contract voluntarily was a question of fact, which had been concurrently decided in favor of the appellant-plaintiff by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in disturbing these findings.

Issue 4: Relief Entitlement
The Supreme Court found that the appellant-plaintiff had approached the court within a reasonable time and had not delayed in seeking the enforcement of her rights. The Court noted that the appellant-plaintiff had issued letters and notices to the respondent-defendant, calling upon her to execute the sale deed, and had filed the suit for specific performance without delay. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was against the settled provisions of law and was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which decreed the suit in favor of the appellant-plaintiff, were restored.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had decreed the suit in favor of the appellant-plaintiff. No costs were awarded.

---