This appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha, which overturned the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, in a case concerning the possession of a suit property. The plaintiff claimed ownership and sought possession after an incomplete sale agreement with the defendants, who contended readiness to finalize the sale. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed it, leading to this second appeal. The court examined whether the plaintiff's suit for possession was maintainable without a declaration of rescission of the sale contract.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

• Plaintiff owns suit property Survey No. 260/2, Pawani.
• Sale agreement dated 20.03.1991 for Rs.30,000/- with Defendant No.1.
• Rs.20,000/- paid initially, possession handed over to defendants.
• Remaining Rs.10,000/- to be paid by 15.03.1992.
• Plaintiff ready to execute sale-deed; Defendant No.1 failed to pay.
• Notice sent to defendants; defendant claimed readiness but no action taken.
• Plaintiff filed suit for possession.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE

• Defendants claimed readiness to execute sale-deed; plaintiff delayed.
• Plaintiff borrowed Rs.3,000/- in 1992, promised future execution.
• No forfeiture clause in the sale agreement.
• Plaintiff did not clear Co-operative Society loan.
• Defendants sought dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENTS OF TRIAL & APPELLATE COURT

• Trial Court dismissed the suit.
• First Appellate Court set aside trial court judgment, decreed suit.

SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW

• Whether plaintiff’s suit for possession is maintainable without a declaration of rescission of the sale agreement.

ADMITTED FACTS

• Sale agreement executed on 20.03.1991.
• Sale-deed not executed by 15.03.1992.
• Suit filed on 15.01.1996.
• No counter-claim by Defendant No.1 for specific performance.
• Notice and replies exchanged (Exhibits 28, 65, 66).

ARGUMENTS

• Defendants: Plaintiff did not seek rescission; possession protected under Section 53A of the T.P. Act.
  • Cited cases to support the stance on time not being essence and limitations.
• Plaintiff: No suit or counter-claim by defendants for performance or refund.
  • Defendant No.1 did not prove readiness/willingness.
  • Defendant No.1 silent for 33 years, failed to perform contract.
  • Cited cases on lack of readiness disqualifying protection under Section 53A.

REASONS

• Sale-deed to be executed by 15.03.1992; time not essence for immovable property.
• Defendant No.1 did not pay remaining amount within a reasonable time.
• Defendant No.1 did not prove readiness and willingness, did not testify.
• Conduct of Defendant No.1 inferred lack of readiness and willingness.
• Plaintiff’s suit for possession based on title is maintainable without declaring rescission.

CONCLUSION

• Defendant No.1 did not establish readiness and willingness under Section 53A of the T.P. Act.
• Plaintiff’s suit for possession is maintainable based on title.
• Appeal dismissed, no costs.
• Stay on execution extended for four weeks.