This appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the decree dated 13.02.2008 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.732 of 2007 on the file of the said Court. The defendant in the above said suit is the appellant in the appeal.

2. G.Ganapathy, the respondent herein filed the said suit against the appellant herein for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 11.06.2006 allegedly executed by the appellant herein/defendant, directing the execution of the sale deed in accordance with the suit agreement, for a direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property, for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from in any manner alienating the suit property and for costs.

3. The above said prayers came to be made by the respondent herein/plaintiff based on the plaint averments which are, in brief, as follows:

The appellant herein/defendant represented that the suit property being a Plot-A type house site together with a tiled house bearing old Door No.83, New Door No.60 in MMDA colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 107, belonged to him; that it was free from encumbrance and that he wanted to sell the same. Bonafide believing the representation of the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale on 11.06.2006 for purchasing the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,20,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant. Thereafter, both of them cancelled the said agreement and entered into a new agreement on the same day. In pursuance of the said agreement for sale, a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- was paid as advance and part payment of the sale consideration and the same was acknowledged by the appellant/defendant. The said amount was received by the appellant/defendant for clearing his loans and for vacating the tenant who was in occupation of the suit property. He agreed to clear the loan and vacate the tenant within a period of 45 days from the date of agreement. Hence, the time for completion of the sale transaction was fixed as 45 days. After the receipt of a huge sum of Rs.2,30,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant / defendant had been evading execution of the sale deed in spite of the repeated demands made by the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant also failed to take steps to vacate the tenant who was in occupation of the suit property and he also failed to clear the loan. Though the respondent/plaintiff even asked the appellant/defendant to execute a sale deed subject to such tenancy, the appellant/defendant evaded performance of his obligations under the agreement for sale. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff sent a letter dated 23.06.2006 expressing his readiness and willingness and the same was received by the appellant/defendant on 24.06.2006. Again on 12.08.2006 the respondent/plaintiff caused a registered legal notice to be issued through his counsel contending that the appellant/defendant had not redeemed the title deeds from the bank with which the property had been mortgaged and that the appellant /defendant had not taken steps to evict the tenant. It was also informed in the said notice that the respondent/plaintiff, in spite of the lapses on the part of the appellant/defendant, was calling upon the appellant/defendant to receive the balance amount of sale consideration and execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property free from encumbrances in favour of the respondent/plaintiff within a period of 10 days. The said notice was responded with a reply notice dated 25.08.2006 falsely claiming that he had already entered into an agreement for sale with Mithukrishnan S/o.Srinivasan on 05.10.2005 and that he received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance from him out of the total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. It was also averred therein that the said Muthukrishnan did not come forward to pu