M. Chockalingam, J.

1. This judgment shall govern these four appeals in OSA Nos.381 to 384 of 2003.

2. These appeals challenge a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.Nos.826 and 983 of 2000 and 111 and 112 of 2001.

3.The plaint averments in C.S.No.826 of 2000 are as follows:

(a) The suit property belonged to the first defendant, a firm, which was being represented by the second defendant. They offered to sell the property to the plaintiff. The price fixed was Rs.9,25,000/-. The suit property is 1/4th undivided share of land situated at Door No.325, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. A written agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 20.3.1991, and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the first defendant as advance. As per the agreement, the sale shall be concluded within a period of four months, and the vendors shall deliver all relevant title deeds to the purchaser at the time of the payment of the 2nd advance of Rs.2,75,000/-. The vendors also agreed for the demolition of the building and for removal of the material contained in the building. The plaintiff paid amounts to the extent of Rs.8,50,000/-on different dates, and the balance due was Rs.75,000/-. The plaintiffs two brothers and father also entered into separate agreement on 20.3.1991 with the first defendant for the purchase of 1/4th undivided share of land in the said property. The sale consideration for each agreement was fixed at Rs.9,25,000/-. Thus, the entire property was agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff, his father and brothers.

.(b) The first defendant had applied to the Income Tax Authorities to issue permission in order to facilitate execution of the sale deed to the plaintiff and other agreement holders. The said authorities initiated proceedings for compulsory acquisition of property. An order was passed by the authorities holding that the said property was fit to be purchased by the Central Government under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and final order was passed on 22. 1993. The department wanted to take possession of the property. The first defendant filed WP No.4588/93 and challenged the order passed on 22. 1993. The plaintiff, his brothers and father also filed writ petitions in this regard. On 19. 1998, this Court has passed an order holding that the provision permitting compulsory purchase was inapplicable in respect of the suit property, and the writ petition was allowed. Because of these proceedings, the plaintiff and the first defendant voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 21. 1994 in continuation of the agreement dated 20.3.1991, as per which the first defendant was permitted to keep the original title deeds with them until completion of the sale by registration of the sale deed, and it also refers the payment made towards sale consideration.

.(c) After the disposal of the said writ petition, the plaintiff has been requesting the first defendant to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed. The first defendant has been telling that the Income Tax Department have taken steps for filing an appeal against the decision rendered in the writ petition. The first defendant filed a suit against the plaintiffs father in O.S.No.3400/98 on the file of the XVIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, and it was resisted by him. For reasons best known, the defendants have been postponing the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff is ready to pay or deposit the balance of sale consideration to the first defendant at any time. On account of default or inaction and delay on the part of the first defendant alone, the sale could not be completed. The first defendant is free to remove the superstructure before delivery of possession of suit property, but not afterwards. The plaintiff had to approach the first defendant directly and through his men