Evidence upheld by lower appellate court cannot be reappreciated.

Second Appeal No.314 of 1986 arises from O.S.No. 1482 of 1981, a suit for specific performance filed by the appellants. Second Appeal No.2101 of 1986 arises from O.S.No.197 of 1981, filed by the defendant in O.S. 1482 of 1981. It was a suit for recovery of the property from the appellants. Both the suits were tried jointly, and evidence was taken in O.S.No.197 of 1981, i.e., the suit filed by the respondent in both the appeals. In this judgment, reference to parties will be according to their rank in O.S.No.1482 of 1981, which relates to Second Appeal No.314 of 1986, in which the plaintiffs in O.S. 1482 of 1981 are the appellants.

2. The plaint property admittedly belonged to the defendant, respondent herein. On 21. 1978, an agreement for sale was executed between the parties. The plaintiff M.S.Mani agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.3,180, and paid an advance of Rs.1,000. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff, agreed to take the sale deed within a period of six months from the date of the agreement on payment of the balance sale consideration at his expenses. The defendantSenguttuvan, in his turn, agreed that he will provide the plaintiff with No Objection Certificate from the Urban Ceiling Authorities and also would satisfy him that the property is free from any encumbrance. It is the case of the plaintiff that subsequent to the agreement, the defendant was not ready to give a sale deed: Plaintiff was put in possession of the property, and with the consent of the owner, he has put up the construction, and for the house-warming ceremony, the defendant was also invited. His close friend who was residing just opposite to the plaint property also attended the house-warming ceremony. In the suit for specific performance, it is said that the plaintiff (M.S.Mani) was always ready and willing to take the. sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement. But he could not take the sale deed, since the defendant demanded a higher price, and he also did not get No Objection Certificate from the Urban Ceiling Authorities, nor was the non-encumbrance certificate obtained by him. Plaintiff prayed that the defendant may be directed to execute a sale deed in his favour.

.3. In answer to the suit claim, defendant contended that the plaintiff was never ready to take the sale deed, and the suit for specific performance was filed long after he filed the suit for recovery of the property. It is his case that he is residing far away from the plaint property, and, taking advantage of his absence from the locality, the plaintiff trespassed into the same and put up unauthorised construction. He never agreed to put the plaintiff in possession. He further said that either during the agreement or thereafter, plaintiff was never ready to take the sale deed, and he did not have sufficient funds. It is further said that there was a shed put up by him, and that was occupied by plaintiff for sometime, and later, the same was rented out to one Mohanvelu on a monthly rent of Rs.60. He contended further that before he instituted the suit, he himself demanded the plaintiff to take the sale deed. But he never came forward with the balance of sale consideration, and only when the plaintifffailed, he thought of filing a suit for recovery of the property. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. O.S.No.l97of 1981 was filed on 18. 1979, though it was numbered long thereafter. In that suit filed by Senguttuvan (who is the defendant in O.S.No.1482 of 1981), he has made averments in accordance with the defence which he has taken in the written states ment filed in O.S.No.1482 of 1981 (suit for specific performance). In O.S.No.197 of 1981, the defendant has filed a written statement contending that he is not liable to be dispossessed, and that he is in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement for sale. He also contended that he is not liable for mesne profits, either past o