https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296445 In contracts for sale of immovable property, time is ordinarily not treated as essential unless the agreement or surrounding circumstances clearly show that intention; a mere payment date without a forfeiture clause does not make the stipulation mandatory, and later acceptance of part payment supported waiver rather than rescission. The plaintiff also proved continuous readiness and willingness by showing financial capacity and arrangements for the balance consideration. Where the owner's promise to execute the sale deed was distinct from an ancillary security covenant by the second defendant, the security term was severable and could be waived, allowing specific performance against the first defendant alone and dismissal of the claim against the second defendant. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:06:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296445 In contracts for sale of immovable property, time is ordinarily not treated as essential unless the agreement or surrounding circumstances clearly show that intention; a mere payment date without a forfeiture clause does not make the stipulation mandatory, and later acceptance of part payment supported waiver rather than rescission. The plaintiff also proved continuous readiness and willingness by showing financial capacity and arrangements for the balance consideration. Where the owner's promise to execute the sale deed was distinct from an ancillary security covenant by the second defendant, the security term was severable and could be waived, allowing specific performance against the first defendant alone and dismissal of the claim against the second defendant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296445