R. BANUMATHI,J

1. This Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31. 2003 made in O.S.No.104 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge -cum- Fast Track Court, Coimbatore dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellants suit for specific performance. The unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellant. For convenience, the parties are referred in their original rank in the suit.

.2. The suit was originally filed before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore and numbered as O.S.No.1272 of 1995 and later transferred to the Additional District Judge -cum- Fast Track Court, Coimbatore and re-numbered as O.S.No.104 of 2001. The suit property and other properties originally belonged to late Kuppuswamy Chettiar – the father of Defendants. He died intestate on 26. 1968. After the death of Kuppuswamy Chettiar, his widow – D.K.Saraswathy and his children partitioned the properties under registered partition deed dated 6. 1975. Since then Defendants and their mother D.K.Saraswathy have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Government of Tamil Nadu desirous of acquiring the suit property for the purpose of housing Coimbatore Central Post Office issued 4(1) notification to acquire an extent of 28,222 sq.ft of land situated in T.S.No.935/2. The Defendants have filed their objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.

3. Case of Plaintiff is that after filing of objections for land acquisition proceedings, the Defendants have approached the Plaintiff offering to sell the suit property. The Plaintiff offered all kinds of assistance to get the suit property de-notified from acquisition. The Plaintiff and Defendants have entered into an agreement of sale on 7. 1986 and the price agreed to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants is Rs.125/- per sq.ft. Parties have further agreed that as per the agreement the Plaintiff should pay Rs.2,75,000/- towards the estimated and agreed value of the buildings standing in the suit property. The Plaintiff has paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of five cheques of Rs.20,000/- to each of the Defendants and their mother – D.K.Saraswathy. As per the terms of agreement, the Plaintiff would endeavour to get the property freed from acquisition and take the sale deed.

4. Further case of Plaintiff is that in order to assist and help the Defendants in getting the acquisition proceedings dropped and de-notified, the Defendants and their mother late D.K.Saraswathy gave general Power of Attorney in favour of Bhanwarlal H. Ranka on 7. 1986 and again after the death of Saraswathy, Defendants have executed Power of Attorney on 5. 1989 in favour of the said Bhanwarlal H. Ranka for the same purpose of cancellation of acquisition proceedings. Further case of Plaintiff is that in furtherance of the terms of agreement the Plaintiff has also moved Government of India (in short, "GOI") and GoI has agreed to drop the acquisition proceedings on condition that the land owner should construct 4000 sq.ft in the ground floor and 4,000 sq.ft in the first floor with necessary access roads and the draft agreement was also sent to the Defendants for the purpose of execution by the Government and the Defendants. But the Defendants did not come forward to enter into agreement with GoI. In the meanwhile, alleging that the Defendants are trying to alienate the property, Plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.783 of 1990 for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the property in favour of the 3rd parties. The Plaintiff has also filed O.S.No.9 of 1991 for decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to enter into an agreement with the Government as proposed by the Government in the draft agreement sent to the Defendants themselves. According to the Plaintiff, they are professional builders and are financially very sound and that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.42,73,162.50 and to ge