Agreement not enforceable against defendants.

Appeal Suit No.1066 of 1988 has been preferred by the second defendant in the suit, being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 8-4-1988 made in O.S. No.60 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, of Tiruvellore, in granting the relief of specific performance against the second defendant.

2. The plaintiff in the Suit O.S. No.60 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tiruvellore, who is the first respondent in A.S. No.1066 of 1988 has preferred Cross Objection No.58 of 1991 insofar as his suit claim has been dismissed against the 5th defendant.

3. Dr. Williams, the plaintiff in O.S. No.60 of 1990 prayed for (i) a decree granting specific performance of the contract of sale by directing the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration of 19,274/-, execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- within the time that may be fixed by the Court and in default by the defendants the Court to execute and register the sale deed; (ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property and (iii) for cost and other incidental reliefs.

4. The suit property is the house and ground bearing Door No.166 (old) and 316 (new) G.N.T. Road, Redhills, Narvarikuppam, Madras-52.

5. Plaintiff's case :- The first defendant owned the suit property. The first defendant entered into a contract of sale on 13-1-1977 with the plaintiff to sell the schedule mentioned property for a total consideration of Rs. 42,500/- and no date has been fixed for performance by way of execution of sale deed. The first defendant agreed to discharge the existing debts on the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff by adjusting the debts towards part of sale consideration. The first defendant also agreed to furnish an encumbrance certificate. The first defendant had expressly undertaken to obtain a letter of consent from Dilli Achary to close the ventilators and remove the sun shades that had been put up by the said Dilli Achary who occupies the house to the north of the suit property. Similarly the first defendant agreed to obtain letter of consent from M/s. Adityan Stores to the effect that the said Adityan would give consent to demolish the sun shades and close down the ventilators whenever the plaintiff wanted to construct on the suit site. On 6-12-1980 the original agreement dated 13-1-1977 was modified and the consideration was increased to Rs. 60,000/-. By 6-12-1980 the first defendant had received further portion of consideration to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- under various heads including plaintiffs obligation to discharge a debt due to Parasammal in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and also received a further sum of Rs. 300/-. The first defendant though agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 19,275/- on or before 31-1-1991 and complete the sale by executing a registered sale deed, had subsequently been pleading for time to obtain the letters of consent. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1750/- on 28-3-1991 and Rs. 600/- on 1-4-1981 and Rs. 950/- on 29-2-1981 respectively. The first defendant approached the plaintiff and wanted money to discharge a debt of Rs. 6000/- due to Parasammal, which she will discharge directly and thereby she will be able to bargain with Parasammal and wanted a frsh agreement to be entered into affirming the correctness of amounts already received from and out of the sale consideration. Accordingly the first defendant executed a third agreement on 29-7-1981 in favour of the plaintiff under which the first defendant acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 6725/- besides deriving satisfaction to the tune of Rs. 21,000/- by way of liquidation of mortgage principal amount. The first defendant also acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 3000/- from the plaintiff in other respects. As on 29-7-1981 on deriving the total satisfaction of Rs