The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence, including documentary evidence, to prove an oral agreement and entitlement to specific performance.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.113 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam dated 23.12.1988 confirming the decree granted in O.S.No.46 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Vridhachalam dated 22.7.1986.

2. Twice defeated defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for a decree for specific performance alleging that suit schedule properties belonged to the defendant, that surrounding that suit properties on three sides there are properties belonging to this plaintiff that on one side there is a channel (V...n**...^) that the suit property is lying as a distinct small plot in the midst of the lands belonging to the defendant, therefore, the defendant wanted to sell the same, that coming to know of this fact, the plaintiff approached the defendant and negotiated for the purchase of the land, that on 15.6.1979, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,250 that on 28.6.1979, the plaintiff went to the defendant and gave the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,250 and wanted the defendant to execute a registered sale deed, that the defendant who accepted the payment, undertook to have the sale registered within a week and that on 28.6.79, the defendant gave a receipt for having received a sum of Rs.5,250 writing it out in his own hand that the plaintiff was also put in possession of the suit property, that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since, that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to execute the sale deed and complete the transactions on several occasions, that the defendant was giving some excuse or other and was postponing the execution of the sale, that of late, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is trying to sell the property to some third parties and that therefore, issued a notice dated 26.11.1981 calling upon the defendant to come and execute the sale deed that the defendant sent a reply raising false contentions and denying the oral agreement and receipt of money and that therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for specific performance against the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff has also stated that in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that there was no valid agreement as an alternative the refunds amount paid may be passed for Rs.5,250 with interest. The defendant filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff by contending that the suit is liable to be rejected with compensatory cost, that the suit property belongs to the defendant, that the suit property is not properly described in the plaint schedule, that it is not true that the defendant wanted to sell the suit property, that there was no negotigations with regard to the sale of the suit property that it is equally false to state that this defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.5,250 that this defendant did not receive any amount, much less a sum of Rs.5,250 on 28.6.1979, that this defendant has not issued any receipt for having received the said amount that this defendant never told the plaintiff that we would execute the sale deed and have it registered in a week that the possession was not handed over to the plaintiff as contended by him, that this defendant is in possession of the suit property that the claim of the plaintiff is false and this can be seen from the fact that even in 1979, the lands in the locality would fetch high price, that the market value of the land was Rs.15,000 per acre, that this defendant could not have agreed to sell the suit property for such a small amount of Rs.5,250 that the agreement set up by the plaintiff is not true, that the plaintiff requested this defendant to sell the suit property to him because he has properties on all three sides but this defendant did not agree and that therefore the plaintiff ha