Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the learned trial Court decreeing the suit filed for specific performance in respect of the common undivided 2/3 share of the defendant, the present appeal came to be filed by the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of plaintiff's case is as follows:- It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the defendant Avinashi Gounder by self acquisition. He had a registered settlement deed dated 21.09.1955 conveying absolute title and possession of the suit property to his wife Angammal. Thereafter the said Angammal, died intestate on 03.05.2005 leaving behind her the defendant as the sole surviving legal heir. By making such representation, the defendant has offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and executed a sale agreement dated 13.07.2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,23,800/- and received a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs as advance towards part payment of the agreed sale consideration. Even before the agreement, the plaintiff has verified the encumbrance and obtained encumbrance certificate for the suit property. It is also agreed in the agreement that the plaintiff on paying the balance amount of Rs.12,73,800/- within 90 days the defendant is bound to execute the sale in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Although the plaintiff had means and had capacity to pay the balance sale consideration, period of 90 days was mutually agreed to satisfy about her absolute tittle from all encumbrances, defects in title if any. The defendant had also issued a publication in Dhina Thanthi on 1.8.2005 and also lodged a complaint on 9.8.2005 with regard to the loss of the original settlement deed. On 2.9.2005, when the plaintiff had been in the Sub-Registrar Office, Avinashi, to ascertain the guideline value of the suit property to purchase the stamp paper and to draw sale deed, she was shocked and surprised to know that one Karuppathal claiming to be the half-sister of the defendant has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.210 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avinashi as against the defendant and the Sub-Registrar of Avinashi on 16.08.2005. The plaintiff also came to know that interim application also filed against the defendant for restraining her from alienating the suit property and against the Sub-Registrar, Avinashi, restraining him from registering the sale deeds in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff had immediately approached the defendant and sought for explanations as to why she has concealed and suppressed about the said case. But the defendant had given vague excuses and had sought some time to furnish details and to solve the dispute amicably and to convey absolute title and possession of the suit property free of all encumbrances, claims and defects in title. Thereafter, the defendant has issued a legal notice on 23.9.2005 suppressing all the material facts and truths more particularly about the pending partition suit. In the legal notice sent by the defendant on 23.9.2005 and 5.10.2005 she had falsely contended that the sale price agreed between the parties is only Rs.15,50,000/- and not Rs.15,23,800/. This was also properly replied by the plaintiff on 10.10.2005, furnishing with them a copy of the Term Deposit Advice dated 10.10.2005 for Rs.12,73,800/- issued by the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Tiruppur. In fact, prior to the issuance of legal notice by the defendant, the defendant has already appeared before the Court on 23.9.2005 in the partition suit filed by her half-sister. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. In fact the defendant had been concealing and suppressing about the previous suit for partition. The plaintiff was always willing to purchase the suit property. The conduct of the defendant clearly shows that the defendant and the plaintiff in O.S.No