The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.2000 in O.S. No.980 of 1995 on the file of Learned IV Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore.

2. The necessary germane facts of the respondents/plaintiffs case are as follows:

"The plaint schedule properties absolutely belongs to the appellant/defendant by virtue of registered settlement deed dated 04.02.1959 bearing document No.165 of 1959. The 5 acres and 39 cents, being the extent of properties is situated in Kuniamuthur village, Coimbatore South Taluk in Coimbatore District which runs as follows:

1. S.F.No.212/2 : Dry AC 1.01

2. S.F.No.212/1 : Dry AC 0.50

3. S.F.No.213/1 : Dry AC 0.30

4. S.F.No.213/3 : Dry AC 1.34

5. S.F.No.215/3 : Dry AC 0.45

6. S.F.No.693/2 : Dry AC 1.79

7. S.F.No.214 : 0.90 in this Southern half AC 0.45 Total AC 5.39

3. As the agricultural operations of the defendant was not successful he was proposing to sell the properties which are situated on the periphery of the Coimbatore City and hence potential for laying the respondents/plaintiffs on 05.02.1992 had entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant/defendant towards the purchase of the total 5 acres and 26 cents of land belonging to the appellant/defendant one in favour of the second respondent/second plaintiff in respect of an extent of 4 acres and 3 cents and another to an extent of 1.26 acres in favour of the first respondent/first plaintiff. An extent of 4 acres and 3 cents by means of an agreement dated 05.02.1992 in favour of the second respondent/second plaintiff is in respect of agricultural lands in entirety. An extent of 1 acre 26 cents in S.F.No.212/2 comprises of a bungalow, wall, motor pumpset, service connection, 7 anganams of crushershed, cow shed, farm shed, coconut trees and all other rights and appurtenances. The dominant intention of the parties was that the entire transactions of the sale agreement is only for the purpose of laying out the entire properties into house sites and resale. Therefore, it was never intended or perceived nor it could ever be intended that the time was the essence of contract.

4. It was further agreed that the second respondent/second plaintiff who initially performed his contract of sale as per first agreement by purchasing the 4.03 acres of lands and after completion of the entire sale only, the first respondent/first plaintiff had the right to claim the execution of the sale of the portion of the property under agreement in respect of S.F.No.212.2 including the bungalow bearing D.No.375-A, Well, Kalam bearing D.No.375 Farm Shed, Crusher Shed, Cow Shed etc., and all other appurtenances with an option to purchase the rest of the agreed properties situated in S.F.No.212 /2 (Western portion, S.F.No.212/1 and 213/1). Hence a Varthamanam agreement was executed on 05.02.1992 itself. The second respondent/second plaintiff was put in possession of the properties proposed to be purchased by him as per his agreement and he had developed the same into house sites by spending considerable amount. The appellant/defendant during the negotiation and execution of the agreement had not diverged the hut dwellers on the western sides who were actually an illegal encroachers of the road margin pertaining to the highways department. The respondents/plaintiffs believed that they were occupying portions of the property under the defendant and the property would be conveyed only after vacating them by the appellant/defendant himself. When the respondents/plaintiffs commenced development portions in 4 acres and 3 cents, it was understood that the hut dwellers were really encroachers and they could not be evacuated easily exerting strenuous efforts. The second respondent/plaintiff was constrained to spend a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for evacuating the 15 hut dwellers on the western side border of the properties mentioned in the agreement. In fact, the second respondent/second plaintiff purchased an alternate land near Kovaipu