(Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 3.8.1999 in A.S.No.41 of 1986 of the learned single Judge reversing the judgment dated 9.12.1985 in O.S.No.103 of 1984, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.)

P.K. Misra, J.

Legal heirs of the original plaintiff are the appellants against the reversing judgment.

2. The suit was filed by one Sarangapani Gounder, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants for specific performance of the contract in alternative for payment of damages. The allegations in the plaint are as follows: -

Plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement for the purchase of suit property by the plaintiff on 14.7.1984 in Kumarakuppam village and an agreement was executed on the same day indicating that the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs.30,500/- out of which Rs.4,000/- would be paid as advance and the balance would be paid within two months, whereafter the sale deed should be executed by the first defendant. It was further provided that if the plaintiff fails to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs.26,500/- within the stipulated time, he had to forego the advance of Rs.4,000/- paid as per the agreement. On the date of the agreement, the first defendant had delivered possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff, who ploughed the same on 18.7.1984 and thereafter planted casuarina on 15.8.1984. The original document of title relating to property, namely, the sale deed executed by Abirami Ammal and Velu in favour of the first defendant on 31.12.1981 was also handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been irrigating from the motor pumpset in S.C.13 in R.S.46/3 in exercise of his half share in such motor pumpset and part of the property was being used as passage. Defendant No.1 intended to sell such property for clearing all the family debts and also for purchasing extensive land in Pomboor village. Subsequently, on 20.7.1984, the first defendant received a further sum of Rs.700/-. The second defendant had purchased from the first defendant certain lands with half share in the motor pumpset in S.C.13 in R.S.46/3 in the suit village and he was also intending to purchase the very same property. When the second defendant became aware of the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant, he offered to purchase the suit property for a higher price of Rs.34,500/-. Thereafter the first and second defendants colluded with each other and threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff had issued a notice dated 19.8.1984 for executing the sale deed and for registration. Such notice was returned as refused. No result is known about the copy of the notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. Before issuing such notice, the plaintiff had sent his sons-in-law to persuade the first defendant to complete the transaction. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He has made a separate deposit of the amount in Saving Banks account, which was filed along with the plaint. Accordingly, the suit had been filed for specific performance of the contract or alternatively payment of sum of Rs.22,700/- as damages for breach of the contract.

3. A written statement was filed by the first defendant denying the allegation relating to execution of the agreement and payment of Rs.4,000/-. It is stated by the first defendant that he had already entered into an agreement to sell the property with the second defendant on 5.6.1984 for Rs.29,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was received as advance. It was claimed that one Velu, brother-in-law of the Defendant No.1 is the resident of Kumarakuppam, who is also related to the plaintiff. One Kannan, co-brother of Defendant No.1 is also related to the plaintiff being agnate (Pangali). After the agreement dated 5.6.1984, those two persons came to the first defendant and threatened as to why the property was agreed to be sold to t