Due to interpolation in the agreement for sale plaintiff not entitled for specific performance.

K.M. NATARAJAN, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 739 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff died and his legal representatives are added. The first defendant died and his legal representatives are added.

2. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed from the plaint is briefly as follows : The defendants are the owners of the suit properties described in the plaint schedule. They entered into an agreement of sale on 22-2-1979 in respect of the suit properties with the plaintiff and one C. Y. Mohammed Ali. As per the terms of the said agreement, they agreed to sell the land measuring 2 acres 41 cents for Rs. 1, 05, 000/- to the plaintiff and the said C. Y. Mohammed Ali and received an advance of Rs. 5, 000/- on the date of the agreement and further agreed to receive another sum of Rs. 5, 000/- within 30 days from the date of agreement. The plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs. 5, 000/- within 30 days and obtained an endorsement in the agreement itself. In all the plaintiff paid Rs. 10, 000/-. It is further stated that the plaintiff after taking delivery of possession of the properties, divided the same into house-sites and planted stones and formed layout roads. The plaintiff with the help and assistance of the defendants submitted the plan for approval to the Deputy Director of Town Planning. It is stated that the defendants wholeheartedly gave their consent and concurrence and subscribed their signatures in the said application and the plan.

3. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into agreements with various parties and received advances as agreed and undertaking by him in the agreement. The plaintiff has spent more than Rs. 1, 00, 000/- out of the advances so received from various parties, for formation of layout and for putting up culvert road and water and other facilities. Even though the period for execution of the sale deed was fixed as nine months from the date of the agreement, it was mutually agreed that the defendants have to execute the sale deed within a period of nine months from the date of the agreement and to apply for approval of the layout and plan. They further agreed to deliver possession of the lands on the same date of the agreement so as to enable the plaintiff to form a layout. They also agreed to receive the sale consideration either in part or in full to the extent sold under each and every sale and to execute the necessary sale deeds as directed by the plaintiff either to him or to his nominees. The defendants authorised the plaintiff to enter into agreements with third parties and receive advance amounts from them. It is only in pursuance of the same, the plaintiff took possession of the properties on the date of the agreement and paid the advance. Both parties agreed to extend the time and also decided that time is not the essence of the contract. The defendants agreed to execute the sale deed after approval of the layout.

4. Subsequently, the defendants took out a different attitude and began to give trouble to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained approval of the layout with great difficulty and also entered into agreements with third parties. The defendants are evading to produce the title deeds on one false pretext or other. The plaintiff has been demanding from the defendants to execute the sale deed. But the defendants were promising and delaying and finally they went to the extent of denying the very existence of the sale agreement, since they felt that they can sell the properties for higher price. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the sale price and have the sale deed in his favour by paying the balance amount. But, the defendants after receiving the advance and delivering possession of the properties so as to enable the plaintiff to obtain an approval of the layout, refused to execute the sale deed and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and committed the breach of the agreement.

5.