Plaintiffs examining himself.

Srinivasan, J.

The plaintiff, who lost in the trial court in a suit for specific performance, has preferred this appeal. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: On 211. 1977 he entered into an agreement with Sri Saravanaperumal Nadar, father of the first defendant and husband of the second defendant, for purchasing the suit properties of an extent of 35 acres 12 cents at the rate of Rs.5,000 per acre. The total consideration works out to Rs.1,75,600 out of which a sum of Rs.10,006 was paid as advance on the date of agreement. The agreement provided that the sale deed should be executed before 30.6.1978. Though the title deeds were given to the plaintiff on the date of agreement, they were taken back with the promise that they will be handed over to the plaintiff a week before the date of sale deed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance amount. But, Saravanaperumal Nadar was delaying the transaction by giving one excuse or other. His son was telling the plaintiff that his father was unwell and would be executing the deed as soon as he recovered fully. On 22. 1979 when the plaintiff pressed for early execution of the sale deed, Saravanaperumal Nadar and his son promised to complete the sale positively on 13. 1979 and the plaintiff arranged to measure the property through a surveyor and obtained encumbrance certificate. By the second week of March, 1979 when the plaintiff requested Saravanaperumal Nadar to give the original title deeds, he was told that the same was with his son, the first defendant and the latter was demanding higher amount for sale. He was also assured that the first defendant would be persuaded to hand over the documents in three or four days i.e., positively before 13. 1979, for preparation of the sale deed. Though thereafter the plaintiff and his brokers approached the vendor and the first defendant several times to give the prior deeds and complete the sale they were evading. The plaintiff did not arrange to get the necessary stamp papers in view of the reluctant attitude of the vendor and his son. The plaintiff learnt that the first defendant was negotiating with third parties to sell the property for higher value and on 223.1979 sent a registered notice through his advocate to the vendor expressing his readiness to pay the balance amount due and requiring completion of the transaction. On the same day, another copy was sent to the address of the vendor by certificate of posting and a third copy was sent to his permanent address at Madurai. The vendor evaded to receive the same. The plaintiff learnt that the property was sold to third defendant, who is a close relation and family friend of the vendor. Defendants 4 to 11 are family members of the third defendant and sale deeds have been taken in their names. The consideration mentioned in the sale deeds is false and it is only a make believe arrangement. The sale deeds are not bona fide. Saravanaperumal Nadar died later leaving his wife, son and daughter as his legal representatives. They are respectively defendants 2, land 12. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce the specific performance and prays for the grant of the same.

2. In the written statement the first defendant contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and within the time specified in the agreement, he did not tender the balance or offer to pay the same. It was found that the plaintiff had no separate funds to finalise the transaction and had to rely upon his father-in-law and according to the service condi-tions with his employers, the plaintiff was not authorised to buy any immovable property without getting the prior permission of the employers. Hence, the plaintiff never turned up for completing the transaction. Thus, he has forfeited his rights under the agreement and the advance paid. The plaintiff was also aware of the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants 3 to 11, who were bona fide purchasers f