1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.420 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. The appellant filed O.S.No.420 of 2006 seeking for a decree of specific performance of sale agreement, dated 20.1.2005 directing the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant after receiving the balance sale consideration and to put the appellant in possession of the suit property and alternatively, a decree for the refund of advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The appellant also sought for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property.

3. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court by a judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2007. Being aggrieved by that the plaintiff has filed the above appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is as follows:-

a. The appellant and the respondents 1 to 7 entered into a sale agreement, dated 20.1.2005. Under the sale agreement, the respondents 1 to 7 agreed to convey the total extent of 44 cents together with buildings bearing door Nos.527 to 530 comprised in S.F.No.531/1 situated in Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk. The total sale consideration fixed as Rs.2,30,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as advance towards sale consideration on the date of the agreement. The suit property was under the occupation of the tenants at the time of the agreement. In the agreement, for completing the sale, four months time was stipulated from the date of the tenants vacating the suit property. However, the time is not considered to be an essence of the agreement. The following amounts have been paid by the appellant to the respondents 1 to 7, namely, Rs.5,00,000/- on 2.2.2005, Rs.4,00,000/- on 24.2.2005, Rs.1,00,000/-on 5.6.2005 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.7.2005 and all the above payments received by the respondents have been endorsed at the back of the sale agreement. Thus, totally, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- have been paid by the appellant towards sale consideration. The fact that the respondents have received the payments even after the expiry of the time stipulated will show that the time is not the essence of the agreement of sale.

b. According to the appellant, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and she was keeping the sale price ready. The respondents 1 to 7 agreed to execute the sale deed after the tenants are vacated. It was represented by the respondents 1 to 7 that they have filed R.C.O.P.No.85 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore against the tenant Balakrishnan for evicting him and after getting delivery of possession, they agreed to execute the sale deed free of encumbrance. The appellant was awaiting the result of the eviction proceedings. The appellant was parking her college buses in the adjacent vacant portion.

c. According to the appellant, she received a letter, dated 23.2.2006 from the respondents 1 to 7, in which it had been falsely contended that the time of four months stipulated was from 20.1.2005 and as the appellant had failed to pay the balance sale consideration, the agreement of sale stood cancelled. The appellant sent a reply, dated 24.2.2006 refuting all the averments of that letter. The respondents 1 to 7 are bound to execute the sale deed only after all the tenants vacated the suit property. One Mr.Sivasankar, as the representative of the appellant tried to contact the respondents 1 to 7 but they were evading to give proper answer. The appellant expressed her readiness to complete the sale. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 7 sent a rejoinder, dated 2.3.2006 reiterating the contents of their earlier letter, dated 23.2.2006. While so, the fourth respondent sent a telegram on 11.3.2006 stating that they are ready to sell the suit property and demanded the appellant to complete the sale before 24.3.