The main legal point established in the judgment is that the agreement to sell was intended to be acted upon, and the plaintiff's conduct did not violate relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.2 of 2008, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

a] The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking the following reliefs:

To pass a decree and judgment against the defendants-a) The specific performance of the suit agreement directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property within a time to be specified by this court failing which this court may be pleased to execute the same in favour of the plaintiff.

b) directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property as a consequential relief of specific performance.

c) and for costs.

(extracted as such)

b] D1 and D2 filed the written statements separately resisting the suit.

c] The trial court framed the relevant issues.

d] Up went the trial, wherein the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A9; on the side of the defendants' D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked and Exs.X1 and X2 also were marked.

e] Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

5. The nitty gritty, the pith and marrow of the averments in the plaint would run thus:

D2, is the Power of Attorney of D1. D2 and the plaintiff entered into the suit agreement to sell as contained in Ex.A1; whereby, the former on behalf of D1, who is the owner of the suit property, agreed to sell the same in favour of the latter, the plaintiff an extent of 1.10 acres of land out of the total extent of 4.64 acres of land in R.S.No.248/1 in Ootacamund town for a total consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-; a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-was paid as advance under the said agreement dated 03.07.2006 and the time stipulated for performance was six months. Before the expiry of six months, the plaintiff issued Ex.A2 notice dated 29.12.2006 calling upon the defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed on receiving the remaining sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. However, there was no response by the defendants. Whereupon, another notice under Ex.A5 dated 05.09.2007 was sent to the defendants, which also evoked no response. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance.

6. Per contra, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, D1 filed the written statement, the sum and substance of the same would run thus:

(i) Albeit D2 filed the written statement separately, there are certain versions, which are common in both the written statements, which could summarily be set out thus:

The agreement to sell was not intended to be acted upon as such. It emerged only as a security for the prompt repayment of the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which D2 on behalf of D1 borrowed from the plaintiff for the purpose of ameliorating the suit property by carving it into plots and selling them to third parties. In fact with the help of developers, the defendants got developed the land concerned and sold as plots to several persons, who raised constructions. All along the plaintiff was keeping quite and he had not raised his little finger as against it due to the reason that the said Ex.A1 was not an agreement to sell at all. In response to the pre-litigation notice, the defendants informed the plaintiff and explained the true position and the plaintiff also accepted the real purport of Ex.A1; whereupon alone no written reply was given by the defendants to Exs.A2 and A5.

(ii) D2 in his separate written statement would also proceed to detail and delineate certain facts to the