T. Mathivanan, J.

Challenge is made in this appeal to the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2008 and made in O.S. No. 266 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Poonamallee.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein, whereas the defendants 1 to 8 are the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience and also for easy reference, the character of the parties to the suit need not be changed and let it remain as it is in the suit.

4. Originally, the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 3. During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant Mr. V. Asirvatham had passed away and therefore in view of the Order dated 05.12.2007 and made in I.A. No. 1413 of 2007, the defendants 4 to 8 being the wife and sons of the deceased third defendant have been impleaded in the suit.

5. The facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

5.1. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

i. For specific performance of the contract of sale agreement directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property after receiving the balance of sale consideration. In default, the Court may execute and register the sale deed on deposit of the balance of sale price into Court, and

ii. Directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

5.2. That on 24.08.2002, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property with the defendants 1 to 3 for a sale consideration of Rs.11,50,000/- per Acre. On the date of the agreement of sale, the defendants had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff as advance and another sum of Rs.40,000/- on 07.09.2002 being the part of the sale consideration. Thus, totally the defendants had received a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. On the date of the agreement itself, the defendants had handed over the title deed relating to the suit property to the plaintiff.

5.3. The plaintiff had / has been ready to pay the balance of sale consideration and to have the sale deed executed in her favour. But, the defendants have been evading to fulfil their part of contract despite of several demands. The plaintiff was put to understand that the defendants had been making attempts to sell the property to third parties. Hence, she had filed a suit O.S. No. 425 of 2005, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Poonamallee seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

5.4. The evasion of the defendants in fulfilling their part of contract of sale inspite of plaintiff's readiness, is illegal and high handed. Hence, the suit.

5.5. The written statement filed by the first defendant has been adopted by the remaining defendants. In the written statement, they have contended that the entire transaction was done by M/s. J.P.Real Estates' proprietor Mr. Deenadayalan. He has only arranged for the sale of the suit property. When the agreement of sale was executed the defendants had asked about the plaintiff. Mr. Deenadayalan had replied that she was one of the partners and that he was in-charge of entire transaction.

5.6. Further in the written statement they have contended that the plaintiff is only a name lendor. She was not aware of where the suit property was situated. The defendants have never met the plaintiff as she was not present at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. At the time of execution of agreement of sale, Mr. Deenadayalan had given an assurance that the entire sale consideration would be paid within a period of two months. Even, the payment of Rs.40,000/- was only paid by Mr. Deenadayalan and not by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has no means to pay the sale consideration and she was never ready and willing to perform her part of contract.

5.7. Further in the written statement they have contended that at the time of execution of sale agreement, the land was under cultivation. It has been specifical