IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.89 of 2006 Suresh Chandra Yadav, son of Late Natho Lal Yadav, resident of village-Jokajalmarai, P.S.-Sadar, District-Purnia. ….Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant. Versus Kalanand Yadav, son of Kamleshwari Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Maranga, P.S. -Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnia. …..Defendant/Respondent/Respondent. ----------- 06/ 02.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-appellant- appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 67of 1992, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a decree against the defendant to return the suit property to him as the plaintiff was ready to pay the amount fixed in the conditional sale deed executed by the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the land involved in the said suit. The said title suit was dismissed on contest with cost vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.1998 by the learned Sadar Munsif, Purnia, whereafter the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 116 of 1998, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Purnia vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2006. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 2 The claim of the appellant is that he executed registered sale deed on 01.12.1988 in favour of the defendant and defendant was put in possession thereof and on the same date the defendant also executed registered deed of agreement for reconveyance of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff agreeing that defendant will execute the sale deed in respect of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff, if the consideration money is paid by the plaintiff within first day of December, 1991. It is also claimed that although the plaintiff repeatedly requested defendant to accept the consideration money but the defendant avoided to accept the same and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the date fixed lapsed whereafter the plaintiff served an advocate’s notice dated 13.12.1991 upon the defendant, who did not take any step in that regard. On the other hand, the defendant contested the suit on several grounds such as maintainability of the suit, cause of action for the suit, bar of limitation specially when the time was the essence of the contract between the parties and also claimed that the plaintiff had no right left for reconveyance of the suit property. From the pleadings of the parties and materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that the learned courts below very carefully considered the materials on record whereafter they came to concurrent finding that deed in question was absolute sale deed 3 without any condition for reconveyance. It was also concurrently held that the plaintiff had not established by valid evidence that he had ever tendered the consideration money to the defendant within the time prescribed and as such he had not performed his part of the agreement in pursuance of Ext.4 series within the prescribed time, which was the essence of the contract, hence the defendant was fully within his right in refusing to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thus the suit was not hit by the provision of section 55 of the Contract Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)