The central legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed disentitled the plaintiff to the equitable relief of specific performance.

1. The brief averments found in the plaint is as follows:

1. (a) The first defendant is the owner of the suit property. He and the plaintiff entered into a registered sale agreement dated 21.4.1995, whereunder the 1st defendat agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and received Rs.1,25,000/-on the same date as advance sale consideration and agreed to receive the balance within 4 months from the date of agreement. However, the time was not the essence of the contract. It is also agreed that on receipt of balance sale consideration, the 1st defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff was ever willing and ready to execute the sale deed, the 1st defendant was evading the same. Hence, he issued a legal notice on 19.8.1995. The 1st defendant did not reply, but, executed another agreement dated 16.2.1996 confirming the sale agreement dated 21.4.1995 and also received the entire balance sale price of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff on the same date and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property in part-performance of the suit agreement. As the 1st defendant failed to execute the sale deed, another legal notice was sent on 10.2.1999 calling upon the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed. On receipt of the above notice, he sent a hand written reply dated 26.3.2002, promising to perform the exeuction of the sale deed.

1. (b) All of a sudden, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant has sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant on 27.8.2001 itself in a surreptitious manner. Both the defendant are aware of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Under section 19 of the Sepcific Relief Act, the defendants are both liable to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for good faith. The plaintiff is still ready to perform his part of the sale agreement. Further the plaintiff claims alternative relief of return of money with interest at 18% p.a. Only to comply with the statutory requirement of law and on the failure to do so, for the Court to execute and register the sale deed and alternatively for directing the defendants jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-to the plaintiff with interest at 18% p.a.

2. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, the following contentions have been raised:-

2. (a) The allegation that this defendant had entered into a sale agreement is admitted. But he denied that he is the owner of the property mentioned in the plaint schedule. Actually, this defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/-from the plaintiff and issued a cheque of Central Bank of India, kotagiri Branch dated 17.11.1993 in favour of the plaintiff. The above said cheque was dishonoured and the plaintiff filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate Kotagiri. This defendant executed a registered sale agreement dated 21.4.95 in favour of the plaintiff for the amount borrowed in the year 1993. Thereafter the plaintiff did not proceed with the case. Therefore, the allegation that this defendant agreed to sell the suit property and received advance sale consideration from the plaintiff is denied. No sale consideration has been passed to this defendant for sale agreement dated 21.4.1995.

2. (b) This defendant never received any amount from the plaintiff as sale consideration and never put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The alleged agreements were never intended to be acted upon and the hand written reply dated 26.3.2002 was obtained by undue influence. The area of around 8.00 acres of Kotagiri Village orginally belonged to this defendant's grand father and subsequently devolved among the legal heirs of his grand father after his death. No partition had taken place at the time of execution of the alleged agreements in favour of the plaintiff. The suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and henc