The Court emphasized that time was the essence of the contract, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, and the suit was filed within the limitation period.

The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:-

1.(a) The defendants are brothers. Suit properties are self-acquired and inherited by the defendants. On 2.2.1999, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale Ex.A.2 in respect of the suit property. As per the said agreement, the 1st defendant had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement has been cancelled on 11.5.2000 by a Cancellation Deed Ex.A.3. In order to get better title, a fresh agreement of sale has been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on 11.5.2000 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-which has been marked as Ex.A.4. Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid as advance to the defendants and it was agreed that the sale had to be completed within one year from the date of sale agreement.

1.(b) The plaintiff has repeatedly requested the defendants to execute and register the sale deed and the defendants were continuously evading the execution and registration of the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff himself has issued a notice dated 5.5.2003 Ex.A.5. Though the defendants received the notices separately, they neither sent any reply nor came forward to execute and register the sale deed. The acknowledgment cards have been marked as Exs.A.6 and A.7. Again the plaintiff has sent a legal notice through counsel on 26.8.2003 under Ex.A.8, which was received by the defendants and they sent their reply notice on 15.9.2003 through their advocate stating that Ex.A.4 agreement of sale has been executed only for the purpose of borrowing loan of behalf of one Mr.Kandasamy who is said to be the Chairman of Nambiyur Panchayat. Since the defendants failed to execute and register the sale deed as agreed, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the above suit.

2. In the written statement filed by the defendants it is averred as follows:

The averments in the plaint that the suit properties are self-acquired and inherited by the defendants are false. It also false to state that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into an agreement and 1st defendant had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and after that a fresh sale agreement of sale was executed cancelling the first agreement. The real fact is that the plaintiff is a financier and the 1st defendant, to get loan from him for ex-panchayat Union Chairman one Kandasamy, stood as guarantor. At the time of getting loan, the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the said Kandasamy and himself in the blank papers and unfilled stamped pronotes. For the security purpose the plaintiff also executed and registered a sale agreement dated 2.2.1999. Again on 11.5.2000 another sale agreement was entered between the said Kandasamy and the plaintiff. The above facts would clearly show that these documents are created for security purpose and there is no Purchaser and Seller relationship and it is only a Creditor, Guarantor relationship. Hence, the above sale agreements were not executed for the sale purpose.

It is false to state that as per the sale agreement dated 11.5.2000 the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and execute the sale deed on his own cost. The averment in the plaint that the defendants contacted the plaintiff in person and requested not to take any legal action and they would settle the issues between them within three months and thereafter execute the sale deed are all false. These averments were all denied in the reply notice sent by these defendants. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3. On the plaintiff's side two witnesses were examined and 11 documents were exhibited and on the side of the defendants side 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1. No witness was examined on the defendants side. After perused the documents and arguments of both sides, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Against which the defendants have preferred ap