N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for specific performance enforcing the contract, dated 29.11.2007 the present appeal came to be filed by the plaintiff. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

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

The defendants 1 to 3 being the owner of the 1st item of the suit property agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.99,230/- per acre and executed an agreement of sale, dated 29.11.2007 and received Rs.40,00,000/- as advance. It is also agreed that part of the remaining sale consideration shall be paid on 23.05.2008 and sale shall be completed before 25.05.2008. It is also stipulated in the agreement that the defendants should make marketable title by demarcating and identifying the property and also to evict the encroachers. On the date of agreement, the defendants 1 to 3 have handed over the title deeds relating to the suit properties to the plaintiff. In pursuant to the agreement, the defendants also sold an extent of 17 acres and 60 cents to the plaintiff's sister-in-law on the direction of the plaintiff on 30.11.2007. The plaintiff has always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendants 1 to 3 did not comply the conditions stipulated in the agreement. Whereas the defendants after the agreement sold item 6 to 8 to the fourth defendant, who being the daughter of the first defendant and item Nos.21 and 22 to the 3rd parties, thereby committing fraud on the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff issued a publication in Tamil daily namely Dinamalar, dated 16.04.2009, which was replied by the defendants with false allegations. The same is also replied by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for specific performance.

3. The defendants 1 to 3 denying the execution of the agreement submitted that they never executed any agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff. The original documents were given to the plaintiff's sister-in-law, during the pendency of a suit in O.S.No.150 of 2008 filed before the learned District Munsif, Nanguneri by the defendants 1 to 3 along with plaintiff's sister-in-law. While the defendants sold the part of the property to the plaintiff's sister-in-law on 30.11.2007 certain documents were obtained by the plaintiff's sister-in-law. Taking advantage of the same now agreement has been created as if the defendants have sold the entire property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether Suit Sale Agreement is valid and Agreement for contract?

2. Whether time is essence of contract?

3. Whether the plaintiff has performed his part of contract and he is ready and willing to perform contract?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief?

5. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. On the side of the plaintiffs PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 were marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 to DW3 examined and no document was marked. Ex.X1 was marked. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit in entirety. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the defendants 1 to 3 infact entered into an agreement on 29.11.2007 for sale of 134 acres at the rate of Rs.99,230/- per acre and received Rs.40,00,000/- as advance. On the date of agreement itself original documents were also handed over to the plaintiff. Besides as per the terms of the contract, the defendants 1 to 3 also sold 17 acres and 60 cents to the plaintiff's sister-in-law on the direction of the plaintiff. That being so, the Trial Court has not considered all these aspects and has given undue importance to the contentions of the defendants that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendants. PW1 and PW2 in t