That no cut-off date was given in the sale agreement for the payment of remaining sale consideration as it was settled between the parties that the remaining sum could be paid at the time of registration of sale deed or at any time before registration--

2021 S C M R 1534

 Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property---

Rival vendees---Superior right---Scope---Right of, person having established that they were equipped with unregistered instrument, which was prior in time, and were in possession of property in part performance of such instrument, would rank superior even against the subsequent registered instrument---Therefore, in the present case, the position of respondent-vendee being in possession of the suit house, and having paid 80 % of the total sale consideration, much before the time fixed in the sale agreement and much before performance of reciprocal obligations set out under the sale agreement on the part of the vendor, was much stronger than that of the rival vendee; more particularly because the possession of respondent-vendee was specifically admitted---

Specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property.

Whether time was essence of the agreement and whether the vendor could revoke the sale agreement-Held, that no cut-off date was given in the sale agreement for the payment of remaining sale consideration as it was settled between the parties that the remaining sum could be paid at the time of registration of sale deed or at any time before registration---Clause of the said agreement made it mandatory for the vendor to obtain all documents necessary for registration of the suit property---Agreement contained reciprocal promises on the part of vendor as well vendee and both the parties were required to perform their respective part of the contract in order to accomplish the sale transaction; however, the vendor failed to perform her part of reciprocal obligations and did not procured all the requisite documents--- As the vendor herself failed to perform her part of contract, therefore, she could not rescind and revoke the'agreement, after the delivery of possession of the suit property to the vendee and the receipt of 80% of the total sale consideration in part performance of the sale transaction---In such circumstances time was never the essence of the agreement and the failure on the part of the promisor/vendor to perform her part of contract could not put her into a position of rescinding or revoking the contract in terms of S. 51 of the Contract Act, 1872---Appeal was dismissed.