Assignee not required to be implead as necessary or proper party.

2.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2000 in Appeal No.773 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1111 of 1979, dated 6.5.1985 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for specific performance of an agreement dated 2.4.1976.

2.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.

3.1. The plaintiff laid O.S. No.1111 of 1979 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2.4.1976, alleging that he entered into the said agreement with the defendant and his son one Palanimuthu for sale consideration of Rs.80,000 and paid a sum of Rs.6,000 on 2.4.1976 and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.74,000 at the time of registration of the sale deed.

3.2. Admittedly, on the date of agreement, viz., 2.4.1976, a Second Appeal No.1606 of 1973 was pending with regard to the suit property against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.364 of 1953 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, between the defendant and his son palanimuthu. Subsequently, the said Palanimuthu got an assignment of the suit property in the said suit O.S. No.364 of 1953, and therefore, he was made a party to the agreement along with the defendant. After the disposal of the second appeal on 28.4.1977, the said Palanimuthu had given up his rights in favour of the defendant. Hence, the said Palanimuthu was not impleaded as a party in the present suit for specific performance.

3.3. The plaintiff further states that he also paid a sum of Rs.4,000 on 9.4.1976 and took possession of the front portion of the suit property and spent about Rs.15,000 for repairing the suit building.

3.4. According to the plaintiff, the sale agreement dated 2.4.1976 was modified on 1.9.1976 extending the period of execution of the sale deed upto 10.5.1977, on condition that the defendant should take steps to dispose of the Second Appeal No.1606 of 1973 on or before 10.5.1977. The plaintiff also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.600 per mensem from 10.11.1976 to 10.5.1977, and the defendant agreed to vacate his tenants Palanisamy and his mother on or before 10.5.1977, to handover vacant possession of the suit property, and to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance of Rs.70,000 on or before 10.5.1977.

3.5. However, alleging that the defendant failed to comply with the above terms and conditions of the sale agreement dated 2.4.1976, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 6.5.1977, to the defendant to complete the transaction, but by a letter dated 17.8.1977, the defendant informed that he could not convey the suit property without the consent of this son, as the same is a joint family property.

4.1. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to complete the transaction, even though the tenants vacated the portion long back and the defendant was ready to handover the rear portion also to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief of specific performance, as he had committed default and was guilty of violation of the conditions of contract.

4.2. It was also contended that the suit property was a joint family property.

5.1. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 80 documents, i.e., Exs.A-1 to A-89 and the defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked 80 documents, i.e., Exs.B-1 to B-80, and one Krishnaswami Gounder was examined as Court witness and through him 14 documents were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-14.

5.2. After appreciating the above evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.

6.1. The unsuccessful defendant preferred Appeal No.773 of 1985 before this Court and contended that, the suit property was not an absolute property of the defendant; the suit was bad for non-joinder of Palanimuthu, the son of the defendant; the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and failed to perform his part of