IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.127 of 2006 SURESH CHANDRA YADAV Son of Late Natho Lal Yadav resident of village Jokajalmarai P.S. Sadar Dist. Purnia ---- Plaintiff-appellant- appellant Versus KALANAND YADAV Son of Kamleshwri Prasad Yadav resident of Mohalla Maranga P.S. Khajanchi Hat Dist Purnia ----- Defendant-respondent- respondent ----------- For the appellant : Mr Uday Chandra Prasad, Advocate For the respondent: None ----------- 06 18.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.68 of 1992 which was filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant- appellant for redemption of mortgage and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Sadar Munsif, Purnia by judgment and decree dated 22.08.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal no.117 of 1998 which was also dismissed on contest but without cost by the learned Addl. District Judge II, Purnia, by judgment and decree dated 25.02.2006. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the argument as well as from the materials on record, it transpires that the claim of the plaintiff was dependant upon registered sale deeds dated 01.12.1988 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant where after consideration money was paid and - 2 - the defendant was put in possession thereof. The claim of the plaintiff was that the said deeds which were exhibits 4 series were not deeds of absolute sale but were deeds of sale with condition of reconveyance if the consideration money is returned by 01.12.1991. Both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to a definite conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence to show that up to 01.12.1991 they were tried to tender the consideration money to the defendant for reconveyance. The learned courts below also came to the concurrent findings of fact that time was essence of the said documents exhibit 4 series and the said term had to be complied within the prescribed period given in the deed and hence the defendant was fully within his right in refusing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff . In the said circumstance, it was held that the plaintiff had not performed his part of the agreement within the time prescribed in the document and hence the suit was hit by the provision of section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872. This Court finds no 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. (S.N.Hussain, J) shahid