Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case.

A. KULASEKARAN, J. :- The plaintiff is the appellant herein who has filed a suit for specific performance in C. S. No. 495 of 1980 to direct the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,000/- and to execute sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property at Door No. 40, Old Door No. 32, Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Madras - 17 which consists of ground and first floor together with an out house and for recovery of possession of the out house in the suit property.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that he started a political party known as Gandhi Kamaraj National Congress on 18-6-1978. After formation of the said party, he was searching for suitable accommodation for the party's office. The defendants are the owners of the suit property. The defendants have orally agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/- in or about the end of June 1978. It is also agreed between the parties to complete the sale on or before 31-12-1979. The defendants have handed over the copies of the title deeds marked as Exs. P1 to P7 and also delivered possession of a portion of the suit property namely ground floor to enable him to house his party's office. One tenant namely Chitramahal Krishnamoorthy was in occupation of the upstair portion, the other two tenants namely Gowri and Ghyare were in occupation of the out house. The Plaintiff has also carried out certain repairs in the building and opened the party's office on 5-7-1978. The Plaintiff started collecting funds for the purchase of the suit property and made payments to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- as mentioned below :-

12-11-1978 Rs. 20,000/- by Cash (Ex. P8)

29-11-1978 Rs. 15,000/- by Cheque

20-12-1978 Rs. 5,000/- by Cheque

26-04-1979 Rs. 10,000/- By Cash (Ex. P9)

03-05-1979 Rs. 50,000/- By Cheque

13-10-1979 Rs. 5,000/- By Cheque

26-10-1979 Rs. 20,000/- By Cash (Ex. P10)

The tenant in occupation of the upstair portion vacated in 1979, possession of the same was delivered to the plaintiff by the defendants; that the defendants promised to deliver vacant possession of the out house by 15-11-1979 and promised to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. As instructed by the defendants, the plaintiff has also purchased requisite stamp papers and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- towards the balance sale consideration, but the defendants were postponing the delivery of vacant possession of the out house. Later, the defendants have agreed to execute the sale deed on 15-2-1980 and to deliver possession. As 15-2-1980 was considered as an inauspicious day, the plaintiff, who was then away from Madras had issued a telegram to the defendants and requested them to postpone the execution of the sale deed to the next auspicious day. On return to Madras, the Plaintiff approached the defendants to fix a date for completion of the transaction, but the defendants have been evading the execution of the sale deed, consequently a lawyer's notice Ex. P14 dated 15-3-1980 was issued calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The defendants have also sent a reply Ex. P15 dated 25-3-1980 with false allegations, immediately a rejoinder Ex. P16 dated 11-4-1980 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant has sent a separate reply notice dated 24-4-1980 reiterating the allegations made in their earlier reply. The defendants have demanded excess payment of Rs. 90,000/- without any basis, which was not agreed upon by the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also deposited the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,000/- in Canara Bank, T. Nagar, Madras and filed the suit.

3. The first defendant in his written statement pleaded that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff and no agreement of sale was entered into with the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The suit