1. This civil suit is filed by the Plaintiff to pass a judgment and decree against the Defendants:-

(a) directing the Defendants to execute the sale deed, by receiving the balance sale price, in respect of the house, ground and premises, bearing Old No. 28, New No. 31, Lal Begum Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5, measuring 1353 square feet or thereabouts more fully described in the schedule and register the same and on the Defendants failing to do so, this court itself to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff.

(b) directing the Defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property, except the portion of the property in occupation of the Plaintiff as a tenant.

(c) directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

2. The case of the Plaintiff, in a nutshell, as set out in the plaint is as follows:-

(a) The Plaintiff, who is the tenant under the 1st Defendant, had entered into a sale agreement, dated 11.12.2007, with the 1st Defendant, with respect to the suit property, viz. house, ground and premises, bearing Old No. 28, New No. 31, Lal Begum Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5, measuring 1353 square feet for a total sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- and on the same day, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance. Under the said sale agreement, the balance sale consideration and the registration of the sale deed had to be completed within 90 days. The Plaintiff had paid another sum of Rs.4,80,000/- and also handed over three cheques, dated 01.07.2008, 15.07.2008 and 30.07.2008, for Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively, towards the sale consideration. Since the 1st Defendant wanted the payment to be made in cash, the amounts mentioned in the said cheques were paid by the Plaintiff by cash and owing to trust, he did not seek return of the said three cheques. The Plaintiff had, thus, paid a total sum of Rs. 19,80,000/- towards the sale consideration and the balance to be paid was Rs.16,20,000/-, for which payment, he was also sanctioned house loan facility.

(b) Unfortunately, due to family circumstances, namely, the sudden demise of his wife's brother, he could not arrange for execution and registration of the sale deed. The 2nd Defendant is the son of the 1st Defendant and the Defendants demanded additional sale consideration and the Plaintiff did not agree to the same. The 2nd Defendant filled up the said three cheques in his name and presented the same for encashment and since they were returned, he initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 15320 of 2008 on the file of the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

(c) The Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.7.2008. The 1st Defendant, who received the said notice, did not sent any reply. The 2nd Defendant did not receive the first notice. The 2nd notice dated 9.8.2008 was sent to the 2nd Defendant and he sent a reply dated 18.8.2008, stating that the agreement of sale was cancelled, since the time was the essence of the contract and within 90 days, the agreement was not concluded and hence, the advance of Rs.2 lakhs was forfeited. It is further stated that the amounts mentioned in the cheques were actually the hand loans received by the Plaintiff from the 2nd Defendant and that the 1st Defendant had settled the property in favour of the 2nd Defendant on 28.7.2008 and that the market value of the property was Rs.85 lakhs and the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale was very much under valued.

(d) It had been further stated in the plaint that the 2nd Defendant had entered into the agreement of sale with Shajath Mohamed Khan for a sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The Plaintiff pleaded that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and had not committed any breach of the contract. Though the time was the essence of the contract, only