The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retention of a part of the sale consideration by the buyer to compel the seller to perform certain obligations does not invalidate the sale, emphasizing the importance of consensus ad idem in constituting a contract and the principle that no one can take advantage of their own wrong.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the original defendants, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.628 of 2008 by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the XVII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in O.S.No.7479 of 1994. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts giving rise to the filing of this Second Appeal as stood exposited from the records would run thus:

(a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) For recovery of possession of the suit property situated at Door No.56 Beemanna Mudali Street, Alwarpet, Madras 600 018 and morefully described in the Schedule from the defendants, their agents henchmen and relatives; and

(ii) for costs." (extracted as such)

(b) The written statement was filed by the defendants resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(d)During trial, the plaintiff-Manikandan examined himself as P.W.2 along with P.W.1- Muthusamy and Exs.A1 and A11 were marked. The third defendant-Gopal examined himself as D.W.1.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the defendants preferred appeal, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether ownership of the property sold under Ex.A2 is passed on partial payment of sale consideration made by the respondent

2. Whether title to the property under Ex.A2 is passed to the respondent on its execution and registration when especially more than half of the total sale consideration is unpaid?

3. Whether in a bilateral instrument can one party rescind his obligation on the failure of his adversary to call upon him to fulfill the terms of the written and registered instrument?

4. Whether the time limit of 6 months fixed in Ex.A2 for the payment of balance of sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- is a condition precedent to make the sale deed Ex.A2 valid in the eyes of law?

5. Whether title and ownership are passed in prasenti on execution and the registration of the sale deed, when especially the title is a claim of right to a property and ownership is a right to own and possess the tangible immovable property?

6. Whether the court of 1st instance and 1st appellate Court applied the well nigh maxim "JUS ALTERI NON HAPENDI or JUS PROHIBENDI (the right to exclude others from its use) so far as the contentious issues involved in the subject matter of the suit?

7. Whether the suit for recovery of possession by the respondent is maintainable in the absence of a declaration of title to the property sold?

8. Whether the suit filed by the respondent is barred by limitation?

9. Whether the extrinsic evidence is allowed to vary the terms of the written registered instrument under section 92 of the Evidence Act?

10. Whether the transfer or property sold under Ex.A2 passes forthwith to the transferee when especially different intention is expressed and inferred by necessary implication as per the terms of the registered sale deed Ex.A2?" (extracted as such)

4. Heard both sides so as to find as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this matter.

5. I fumigate my mind with the principles as found enshrined in the following decision:

(2011) 1 SCC 673 [VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR vs.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI]; certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"19. It is manifest from a bare reading of the section that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from