The plaintiff's failure to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract and possession pursuant to the agreement led to the dismissal of the suit.

The suit is filed for execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, as per the Agreement dated 04.3.2010 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession in the suit property.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

The defendants, who are the owners of the property in question, entered into agreement of sale dated 04.3.2010 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. The plaintiff also paid advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendants. The defendants also handed over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff continues to be in peaceful possession of the schedule property. Though the plaintiff is willing to pay the entire balance sale consideration, the defendants sought time to perform their obligation by obtaining Release Deed from one Ravindran, the 1st defendant son and 2nd defendant's brother, in order to resolve their family dispute. Thereafter, at the end of 2010, only by way of abundant caution, the plaintiff called upon the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property, even without obtaining Release Deed.

2.1. While so, the defendants informed the plaintiff that the said Ravindran, had obtained an interim injunction against the defendants from selling the suit property in a suit filed by him in O.S.No.11137 of 2010 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and also requested the plaintiff to grant time to execute the Sale Deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application to implead him in the aforementioned suit, but the same was dismissed. However, the aforementioned suit itself was dismissed as against the suit property on 21.3.2013. When the plaintiff called upon the defendants to execute and register the Sale Deed, the defendants threatened the plaintiff in dire consequences.

2.2. In the meantime, the said Ravindran issued a legal notice to the defendants on 01.4.2013 making false and frivolous allegations and calling upon them to effect partition. According to the plaintiff, the said Ravindran himself has admitted that the suit filed by him was dismissed with regard to the suit schedule property in view of the fact that he had not sought for any share in the schedule property. That being the case, he cannot seek for partition. Since the defendants committed breach of agreement dated 04.3.20102, the plaintiff has no other option but to file the above suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 04.3.2010.

3. The brief facts of the case of the 1st defendant are as follows:

The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit has been filed only after a period of three (3) years from the date of the agreement and, therefore, it is barred by limitation. According to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has not deposited the balance sale consideration. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and she can pass on a valid title to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not heed to it and failed to get the Sale Deed registered within the time as stipulated in the sale agreement. The plaintiff's claim that possession was given to him without the sale consideration being paid and without the agreement of sale being registered only proves his malafide intention and ulterior motive to usurp the suit property. The plaintiff, though aware of the suit in O.S.No.11137 of 2010 even in the year 2010, has filed an impleading application only in February 2013, at the fag end, when the matter was listed for arguments. Therefore, the same was rightly rejected. According to the 1st defendant, in view of the inordinate delay in getting the sal