1. This second appeal is for accused by the defendants, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2010 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram in A.S.No.41 of 2009 in confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in O.S.No.524 of 2008.

2. The parties, for thesake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts, which stood uncontained and unveiled, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal, would run thus:

a] The plaintiff-Harikrishnan filed the suit as against the following six persons:

1. Ponnammal

2. J.Devadasan

3. J.Gopu

4. J.Punniyakotti

5. J.Manoharan

6. R.Kumaravel

Seeking the relief of specific performance with regard to the immovable property found described in the schedule of the plaint, which is set out thus:

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

Kanchipuram District, Sriperumbudur Taluk in No.119, Kandhoor Village,

1. 141/2A Dry 0.40 cents

2. 141/3 Dry 0.82 cents

3. 142/1 Dry 0.42 cents

4. 134/B Dry 2.78 cents

5. 141/2B Dry 0.73 cents

6. 141/4B Dry 0.40 cents

7. 141/7 Dry 0.55 cents

8. 141/8A1 Dry 0.42 cents

9. 142/3B Dry 0.77 cents

(extracted as such)

b] A summation and summarisation of the averments in the plaint would run thus:

An agreement to sell Ex.A1 emerged on 01.09.1999 between the plaintiff and the following seven persons:

1. J.Ponnammal

2. M.Jayarama Naicker

3. J.Devadasan

4. J.Gopu

5. J.Punniyakoti

6.R.Kumaravel

7. Manoharan

For a total sale consideration of Rs.97,800/-stipulating a period of six months for performance and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as advance under the said agreement to sell. The proposed seller was enjoined to sell the property free from encumbrance. However, subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the third defendant created a mortgage loan in favour of Poonamallee Co-op. Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Chennai-56 for certain sum in respect of an extent of 2.32 acres comprised of Survey Nos.141/3, 142/1, 141/4B and 141/2B, which forms part of the suit property. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the remaining part of the sale consideration of Rs.77,800/-, the defendants were postponing the execution of the sale deed and they did not also take steps to discharge the mortgage loan. However, during the month of May 2003, the defendants' insisted for higher sale consideration, for which the plaintiff also agreed because he happened to be a real estate business man and that he had commitment with third parties. Accordingly, on 24.05.2003 the plaintiff made the following payments:

1. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was received by the 2nd defendant.

2. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was received by the 3rd defendant.

3. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was received by the 4th defendant.

4. A sum of Rs.47,850/- was received by the 5th defendant under three cheques.

As such, the total amount paid was Rs.1,77,850/- on 24.05.2003 in addition to the sum of Rs.20,000/- already paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under the said agreement to sell. The defendants' undertook to clear the mortgage at an earlier date and execute the sale deed; but they failed to do so. Whereupon, the plaintiff himself discharged the loan of Rs.53,000/- and got back the original document from the said Bank on 01.12.2003. As such, the plaintiff paid the entire enhanced sale consideration and he was entitled to specific performance. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that even though Ex.A1 is a registered agreement yet under one other un-registered agreement, which emerged on the same day, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property as per Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. As the pre-suit notice dated 26.05.2004, issued by the plaintiff evoked no response from the defendants, the suit was came to be filed.

c]