Common Judgment:

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the orders in I.A.Nos.609 of 2010 and 216 of 2010 in O.S No 173 of 2010 dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge II, Kancheepuram.

2. The appellants are the respondents/defendants. The respondent herein is the petitioner/ plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per the original rank in the suit.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance with possession in relief (a) and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession in relief (b). The suit was initially filed in Chengelpattu and subsequently transferred to Kancheepuram. Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property, was filed on 24.11.2008 along with the plaint in 2008 and later numbered as I.A.No.216 of 2010. I.A.No.609 of 2010 was filed seeking interim Injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on 06.07.2010.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant for himself, second defendant and on behalf of the company M/s.Shoreline Farms Pvt. Ltd., agreed to sell 1 acre and 67 cents of lands in various Survey Numbers in 177, Thammanur Village, Kancheepuram District for a total sale consideration of Rs. 16,22,000/- and entered into an agreement for sale dated 28.01.2006 with the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.41,000/- at the time of executing the agreement and agreed to tender the balance of Rs.15,81,000/- and get the sale deed executed within three months. The further case of the plaintiff is that though he had agreed to tender the balance within three months, time was not the essence of the contract and as part performance, he was put in possession of the suit property and spent about Rs.1,00,000/- on the property. Later on 03.03.2006, the plaintiff caused a notice through his advocate calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of his nominee. Claiming that the defendants are attempting to sell the suit property to some third party and that the defendants attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff on 31.10.2008, the suit was filed on 24.11.2008. I.A.No.216 of 2010 was filed based on same averments seeking interim injunction against alienation. No interim injunction was sought against dispossession. Subsequently, with the same averments just by changing the date of threat to evict to 04.07.2010, I.A.No.609 of 2010 has been filed seeking interim injunction against dispossession.

5. The defendants filed their written statement and counter denying the contents and stating inter alia that the suit has been filed suppressing material facts and particulars, the plaintiff was never put in possession, that the agreement is non-est and hence unenforceable, to the notice dated 03.03.2006, the defendants sent a reply notice dated 17.03.2006 expressing their inability to execute the sale deed and since the Board Resolution was not passed authorizing the Director to sell the property, the agreement is invalid and had become unenforceable. The defendants further contended that they subsequently sent a notice dated 06.06.2006 asking the plaintiff not to indulge in illegal activities and another notice dated 22.06.2006 with a Demand Draft dated 20.06.2006 for Rs.41,000/- returning the advance amount expressing the impossibility of performance of contract. Both the notices were received by the plaintiff and the demand draft was also encashed on 29.06.2006. Subsequent to encashment, the plaintiff preferred a false private complaint in C.C.No.468 of 2006 and the same was quashed by the High Court on 16.02.2010 in Crl.O.P.No.9583 of 2007 and therefore sought dismissal of the suit. The defendants also filed adangal for 2006, 2007 and 2008 in support of their claim that possession was never handed over.

6. After hearing the arguments, the T