Plaintiff held is entitled to any relief.

Srinivasan, J.

The plaintiff, which is a co-operative society has filed this appeal. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 26.10.1976 under Ex.A-1 entered with the plaintiff by one Radhakrishnan. Under the terms of the agreement, the consideration was fixed as Rs.1,04,000 and an advance of Rs.5,000 is said to have been paid. The time for completion of the transaction was agreed to be three months. In other words, it was to be completed before 25.1.1977. On 16.11.1976, the said Radhakrishnan gave a letter to the plaintiff stating that he signed the agreement without knowing the contents when the members of the society compelled him to sign the same. According to him, he was not having a steady mind at that time and after he returned to his house, the members of his family expressed the dissent to the transaction. He prayed for cancellation of the agreement.

2. On 20.11.1976, the Board of Directors passed two resolutions, one deciding to apply for sanction to purchase the property to the concerned authority viz., The Director of Handlooms and Textiles and the other to apply for loan from the Provident Fund kept in deposit with the Central Co-operative Bank, Kancheepuram. Radhakrish-nan wrote another letter on 7.12.1976 marked as Ex.B-2 on the same lines as Ex.B-1. There was a reply by the Society to Radhakrishnan on 17.1.1977 through its lawyer. It was stated in the reply that the Society was ready and willing to have the sale deed completed and pay the balance of the sale price. He was called upon to fix and intimate a date to the society for the execution and registration of the sale deed. Radhakrishnan sent a reply in Ex. A-4 on 28.1.1977 stating that the agreement was executed when he was not sober. He stated that the agreement could not be completed and he would not execute a sale deed. The society kept quiet after receiving the said reply.

3. Radhakrishnan died on 23.7.1977. The society sent notices to the legal representatives on 13.8.1977 under Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 calling upon them to execute a sale deed as per the agreement referred to earlier. A reply was sent by the legal representatives who are the defendants herein on 22.8.1977 under Ex.A-7 in which they stated categorically that the sale deed would not be executed and the society was not entitled to call upon them to specifically perform the agreement. Nearly a year lapsed before the society issued another notice under Ex.A-7 dated 28.6.1978 again calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. There is no explanation in the notice as to why the society kept quiet after receiving the earlier reply notice dated 22.8.1977. There was a reply by the defendants on 9.7.1978 under Ex.A-9 once again reiterating their stand. Again, the society kept quiet till 5.6.1979, when a registered notice was issued by the society’s lawyer under Ex.A-10. Then the suit was filed on 18.6.1979 by the society for specific performance, t is averred in the plaint that the society is ready and willing to deposit the sum of Rs.99,000 under directions of the Court out of which amount,the amount necessary to obtain Income Tax Clearance Certificate under Sec.230-A of the Income Tax Act may be directed to be paid to the authorities by the court and the same adjusted against the price of the suit property. There is no explanation in the plaint as to why the Society kept quiet for nearly three years after the date of the agreement inspite of being aware of the stand taken by Radhakrishnan and his legal representatives. There is also no explanation as to why the society waited for more than a year after issuing the so-called final notice under Ex.A-6 to the defendants.

4. The defendants raised several contentions. The main contention was that the agreement was not entered into voluntarily by Radhakrishnan and at the time of agreement, he was under the influence of alcohol and his senses were not in his control. It was also alleged that he was steeped in debts