Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for specific performance, the present appeal came to be filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their ranking before the learned trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows :

The plaintiff is a reputed manufacturer of potassium chloride. With a view to start their unit in Karaikkal, they purchased large extent of lands in T.R. Pattinam. However, the Government have acquired the lands to develop growth centre. Therefore, the plaintiff was looking after alternative lands. When the matter stood thus, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with one S.Subramanian on 26.12.2007 for purchase of the suit property at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per kuzhi. Unfortunately, the said Subramanian died within a few days after the agreement leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 26.05.2008 and the notice was replied by the defendants. The plaintiff also sent a rejoinder immediately. Hence, the suit.

4. Brief contentions of the defendants are as follows :

Denying the agreement said to have been executed by the husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, it is the contention of the defendants that they do not know the alleged sale agreement, as the said Subramanian did not inform them about the sale agreement during his life time. It is also denied by the defendants that the plaintiff approached them and demanded to execute the sale deed. The suit notice issued on 26.05.2008 was suitably replied by the defendants on 01.07.2008 and the suit has been filed in the year 2009. The defendants have no other property except the suit property and they have no intention to sell the suit property. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in this suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of compensation for Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.5000/- given as advance?

4. To what relief?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On the side of the defendants, first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on their side.

7. On the basis of the evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the plaintiff is a company and through their authorised representative, they have entered into an agreement dated 26.12.2007 with one Subramanian. Unfortunately, he died within 10 days from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff has requested the defendants, being the legal heirs of the said Subramaninan, to complete the contract. The defendants at that time were mourning and bereavement and requested to wait for some time to execute the document. However, the defendants did not come forward to execute the document. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, not only prove the execution, but also plaintiff's readiness and willingness from the beginning and submitted that they are entitled for specific performance. In support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1965 SC1405 [Mademsetty Satyanarayana Vs. G. Yelloji Rao and others], 100 LW page 483 [N.B. Bamazi Vs. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, by its Trustee, Mrs. Leela Nambiar], AIR 2004 Madras 18 [Smt.Sushila Vs. Nihalchand Nahata] and AIR 1991 Madras 137 [P. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Lakshmi Ammal and others]. D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted the return of the advance amount. That itself clearly show that Ex.A.1 is a genuine one. Hence, prayed for decree of specific performance.

9. It is the cont