The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek specific performance for the entire suit property except for the excluded portion, based on the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

1. This appeal is focused by the second defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.No.69 of 2007. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus.

4. The case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

The defendants, who happened to be the owners of the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint, entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff, whereby the defendants agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.6,30,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid as advance. Time stipulated for performance of the agreement was six months so to say up to 13.2.2007. Before the expiry of the period contemplated in the agreement to sell, in three installments totally a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid additionally by the plaintiff to the land owner’s relatives, so to say, the first two instalments were paid @ Rs.1,00,000/- each to one Prasad-D5 the husband of D3 and the third instalment of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on 10.2.2007 by the plaintiff to D4 so to say, D3’s husband. As such according to the plaintiff totally a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid in favour of the defendants under the agreement to sell and only the remaining sum of Rs.1,80,000/-was yet to be paid out of the total sale consideration. In fact the plaintiff also went to the extent of averring in para No.6 of the plaint that if for any reason out of Rs.4,50,000/- a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-is disputed, that amount also would be deposited in court by the plaintiff for getting the sale executed in his favour.

5. It is the precise case of the plaintiff that the defendants even after issuing their pre suit notice ExA5 dated 23.3.2007 refused to come forward to execute the sale deed which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

6. Only D2 resisted the suit by filing written statement, the nitty gritty of it would run thus:

D2 is the absolute owner of the suit property and other defendants are having nothing to do with it. In fact, the plaintiff got the signatures of D2 in blank papers under the pretext that he would secure more amount from one Peethambara Raju who purchased an extent of 25 cents for a song from D2, vide sale deed Ex.B2 dated 19.4.2004. D2 at no point of time agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff fraudulently cooked up Ex.A1, the agreement to sell and tried to grab the property of D2. No amount was received by D2 from the plaintiff. Accordingly D2 would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

7. Ultimately the trial court framed the relevant issues. During trial on the side of the plaintiff he examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2/Subramanian and P.W.3/E. Venkatesalu and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 Subramania Naidu.

8. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit in entirety. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree of the trial court D2 filed this appeal on various grounds, inter alia thus:

The judgment and decree of the trial Court against the principles governing granting of decree for specific performance. The alleged three instalments paid to D4 and D5 can never be taken as the ones paid to D2. In fact under ex.2 an amount was paid to D2. By virtue of the will executed by D2’s father, D2 became the absolute owner and in such a case, the contention of the plaintiff that all the defendants had ownership right over the suit property is a bare faced lie. But the trial court simply ignored the evidence of D.W.2 one of the attesting witnesses to the will and held