V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. The appeal arises out of a decree for specific performance granted by the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore. We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 148 of 2005 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Court, Coimbatore for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27.1.2005.

3. The case of the respondents in the plaint was that the appellant offered to sell three items of properties more fully described in the plaint schedule for a total consideration of Rs. 1,85,01,000/-; that an agreement of sale was entered into on 27.1.2005 and an advance of Rs. 28 lakhs was paid, at the time of execution of the agreement; that out of the three items of properties agreed to be sold, two belonged to the appellant herein and the third belonged to the appellant's mother; and that under Clause 9 of the agreement, the appellant agreed to have the third item of property also conveyed to him by his mother before the execution and registration of the sale; that under the agreement of sale, the appellant agreed to make all the six tenants except one, enter into fresh deeds of lease with the respondents/plaintiffs.

4. It is the further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that since they had spent considerable time in the United States of America and returned to India within a view to settle down permanently in India, they made all arrangements to pay the sale consideration by taking necessary steps to draw the amounts from the bank; that the respondents/plaintiffs were having sufficient funds to pay to the appellant at any time; that the respondents/plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the appellant/defendant was unnecessarily postponing the execution of the sale deed; that therefore, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 21.3.2005 informing the defendant about their readiness and willingness and the notice was received by the defendant only on 28.3.2005; that time was not the essence of the contract and in any case, there was no delay on the part of the plaintiffs; that even if the defendant was unable to get a sale deed from his mother in respect of the third item of the property, the plaintiffs were willing to purchase the other two items, for proportionate value; that the plaintiffs were willing to have the value of the third item of property fixed by the defendant himself; that defendant did not take any steps for getting fresh lease executed by the tenants in favour of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs received a letter from the defendant, in which, the defendant had taken a stand that the agreement was one sided and not enforceable in law and that therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

5. The appellant herein, who was the sole defendant in the suit, filed a written statement contending inter alia that the defendant took immediate steps after the execution of the agreement, to have the third item of property conveyed to him; that his mother conveyed the third item in favour of the defendant under a settlement deed dated 31.1.2005 and the plaintiffs were also apprised of the said act; that Clause 14 of the agreement of sale contained two important conditions namely that if the plaintiffs failed to perform their obligations within the time stipulated, the agreement would stand automatically cancelled and the defendant would not be answerable for the nonperformance in such an event; and that it is true that the defendant promised to have the portion in the occupation of the tenant - Airlinks Enterprises vacated before the sale and also get attornment of tenancies from the other tenants.

6. It was the further case of the appellant/defendant that the averments contained in the plaint as thoug