The main legal point established is that specific performance is the adequate remedy for breach of an agreement concerning immovable property, and the defendants are barred from contesting the consideration amount stated in the document.

First appeal and Transfer Appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu dated 27. 1994 passed in O.S.No.44 of 1993 and O.S.No.280 of 1993.

I Nature of suits in appeals:

The appeals are against the common judgment rendered on 27. 1994 in O.S.Nos.44 of 1993 and 280 of 1993. The former suit viz., O.S.No.44 of 1993 was for specific performance of agreement of sale, admittedly executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 44,000/-on 19. 1992. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and defendants 3 to 5 are their sons. The first defendant has filed his own suit in O.S.NO.280 of 1993 for a declaration that the agreement of sale has been rescinded, and for recovery of possession of the property with past damages. The Court below decreed the suit as prayed for and dismissed the defendants suit. The defendants in O.S.No.44 of 1993 are the appellants.

II The contention of the plaintiff:

2. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on19. 1992 and on the same date, Rs.20,000/- had been paid as advance. The balance of Rs.24,000/- was payable in three months. The document had been signed by the first defendant as well as the second defendant. The plaintiffs contention was that he has been ready and willing to pay the balance amount and secure the sale deed to perform his contract . The draft sale deed had been drawn up on stamp papers on 12. 1992 and on that day, the balance amount had also been paid. All the defendants viz. the sons of the original party to Ex.A1 had also joned on the execution of the document. The plaintiff seeks for enforcement of the agreement on such terms.

III The defence in suit for specific performance and reason for defendants own suit for rescission:

3. The defendants contention is that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the amount and the subsequent document dated 12. 1992 was not true. The plaintiff had trespassed into the property by force and ejected the tenant from the property. According to him, the plaintiff was not willing to pay the balance of Rs.24,000/-within the time stipulated and committed breach of contract. Having failed to pay the balance of consideration, the plaintiff brought some men and entered upon the property forcibly evicting his tenant Krishnan and occupied the property in the first week of December, 1992. A panchayat was convened on 112. 1992 and a fresh consideration was negotiated for Rs.1 lakh. At that time, the signatures of the defendants had been taken on several stamp papers after paying additional sum of Rs.20,000/-. Even the balance of Rs.60,000/- which was agreed to pay was not given but the plaintiff had entered upon the property unlawfully. The suit was therefore filed terminating the earlier agreement dated 19. 1992 and for recovery of possession of property.

IV Disposition in the Court below:

.4. The trial court on a joint trial found that the agreement was true. It also found that the subsequent document which was executed on 12. 1992 was also true and the sale consideration having been paid, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance. The Court rejected the contention of trespass and decreed the plaintiffs suit and dismissed the defendants suit.

.V Factors against the relierf – Appellants arguments:

.5. Before me, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff had no consistent case. If the agreement dated 19. 1992 had been superseded by the draft sale deed and it was drawn up on 12. 1992, the plaintiff could not have sought for enforcement of the first document, since there had been a novation. The other contention is that the plaintiff had forcibly taken possession of the property, even when the agreement did not stipulate the handing over of possession. The possession was not handed over under the doc