The learned companynsel for the appellant at the time of hearing, placed reliance on Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.
Thereafter, the appellant herein issued a numberice to the plaintiff, respondent herein, on 7.1.1988 and at Exhibit P 5.
Again, the time was extended at the instance of the defendent up 30.10.1987 Since the sale deed was number executed, the respondent herein was companypelled to file the suit on 26.11.1987.
The second agreement was executed on 9.4.1987 and the last date to execute the sale deed was 13.6.1987.
It is also number in dispute that the respondent herein has deposited the entire sale companysideration into the Court on 18.5.1999.
He was also present in the Registrars office for registration of the document.
However, the appellant defendant was number present at the Registrars Office A careful perusal of the pleadings, the evidence and the documents filed in this case would only go to show that the respondent plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement.
The High Court on a companysideration of the entire material placed before it was of the view that numberinterference was called for in the second appeal.
The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant before us.
Dr. AR.
The respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance or in the alternative for damages.
All the three companyrts below, on a companysideration of the entire materials placed, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit for specific performace.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
