R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) & Ors. vs. T. R. K. Sarawathy & Anr. (SC)

Specific Relief Act, 1963–Sec. 12–Inconsistency in clauses of agreement–Whether the time was essence ?–Determination–Condition no. 2 shows that the buyers shall pay the balance consideration within four months from the date of agreement–In the next condition, sellers agreed that they will have the tenants vacated the property and deliver vacant possession thereof at the time of sale–It cannot be said that the later clause destroys the effect of the former clause altogether–Both the clauses should be read together and given effect upon ascertaining the intention of the parties as disclosed by the agreement as a whole–It was obligatory for the buyer to pay the balance price within four months and obtain the sale deed–There was an assumption that the property would be made free of tenants by the sallers by that time–Property was vacated on 2nd Feb., 2006, therefore, the buyers had the time of four months till 1st June, 2006–Trial Court and HIgh Court rightly concluded that the time was not essence though the agreement provided the time mentioned in this agreement shall be of the essence.