C.S. Karnan, J.

1. The plaintiffs had submitted that the suit property belonged to first defendant Trust, which is a Private Trust, who had purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed, dated 18.11.1996. All the trustees had given their consent to the Secretary of the Trust for alienation of the suit property. Accordingly, the Secretary had entered into a Sale Agreement, dated 13.10.2004, with the deceased first plaintiff for the sale of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,75,000/- and he had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as advance. Both the parties had agreed to execute a Sale Deed within a period of 180 days from the date of agreement. After arranging the balance sale consideration, he had requested the Secretary of the Trust to execute the Sale Deed. But, he had refused to execute A Sale Deed and to fulfil the contractual obligation. Hence, he had filed a suit in O.S. No. 127 of 2005, before the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul, for specific performance. They had further submitted that the first defendant had agreed to sell the suit property along with other landed properties, measuring about 42 Acres, belonging to them. Therefore, Vijaya Bhoopathy, nephew of the deceased first plaintiff, had arranged to execute separate sale agreements in favour of him, his mother Akkammal, sister Solochana, brother Kanakasabapathy, and uncle Parthasarathy/1 Plaintiff and accordingly, separate sale agreements had been executed. Though it had been mentioned in the agreements that possession of the subject property had not been handed over to the purchasers, on the date of the agreements itself Vijaya Bhoopathi was given possession of the entire subject property. From the date of the agreements, the agreement-holders had occupied the house situated in the subject property. Thereafter, on the consent of the first defendant, they had removed the unwanted trees and shrubs grown in the subject property.

2. Further, they had submitted that they had levelled the subject land by engaging JCP machine, rectified the damaged electrical wires fixed in the house situated on the subject land and rectified the damaged wires of the motor pump-sets, by spending a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently, Vijaya Bhoopathy, nephew of the deceased 1 plaintiff, had paid an additional advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16.12.2004 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 17.01.2005 to the first defendant for all the five agreements. For the said payment, endorsements were made in the agreements. As such, he was liable to pay the balance sale consideration a sum of Rs. 20,000/- after deducting the advance amount.

3. They had further submitted that after arranging the balance sale consideration, the first plaintiff had informed the first defendant to receive the same and execute the Sale Deed. But, the first defendant with mala fide intention caused delay with petty excuses. He had not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, Vijaya Bhoopathy on behalf of all the agreement-holders had issued a legal notice, to the first defendant, through telegram, on 24.05.2005. After receipt of the same also, the first defendant had not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Subsequently, the first defendant and his men had attempted to encroach the subject lands, which are under the occupation of the agreement-holders. Their counsel had issued a legal notice on 07.06.2005 to the first defendant and thereafter also the first defendant had not come forward to execute the Sale Deed as per the agreement, dated 13.10.2004. Hence, the deceased first plaintiff had filed the above suit for specific performance of contract for sale. He had also sought for an alternative prayer that if the Trial Court is unable to grant a decree for specific performance, he is entitled to receive the advance amount from the first defendant. He had also prayed for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit that the sale agreement as well as the occupation of the suit p