P. KALAIYARASAN, J.

1. Challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.06.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udagamandalam in O.S. No. 24 of 2010, dismissing the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract and permanent injunction and directing the defendant to pay the advance amount with interest, the plaintiff as appellant preferred this Appeal Suit.

2. The plaint averments are as follows:

(i) The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of one P.N. Raman, Advocate on 23.10.2016, to negotiate, enter into an agreement of sale, receive advance and issue receipt in respect of the plaint schedule property. The legal heirs of the husband of defendant, late Anantha Krishnan also signed in the power deed. The defendant, through her agent executed a sale agreement dated 25.10.2006 in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.1 crore 20 lakhs and received an advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. As per the agreement, the defendant shall measure the suit property with Government Surveyor and hand over the sketch within 15 days and shall vacate the watchman from the suit property and hand over the possession. The plaintiff shall pay Rs. 25,00,000/- out of the balance sale consideration within a month and the sale is to be completed within 60 days from the date of agreement.

(ii) Though the plaintiff expressed his willingness to perform the contract and ready to pay the balance sale consideration, the defendant did not comply the conditions and measure the suit property and evict the watchman within the stipulated period and therefore, the plaintiff would not pay Rs. 25,00,000/-. However, at request of the defendant, the plaintiff paid a further advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 15.12.2006. The wife of the watchman appointed by the defendant instituted a suit in O.S. No. 79 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ooty for permanent injunction. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of extension of time with the defendant through her power agent on 12.02.2007. Thus time was extended till 10.03.2007. The defendant further extended the time by way of an endorsement dated 07.03.2007 for a further period of five months in view of the pendency of the suit.

(iii) The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the entire balance sale consideration. The defendant has not taken any steps to vacate the watchman and gave evasive reply. The defendant issued legal notice on 18.07.2008 with false allegations thereby returned Demand Draft for Rs. 5,00,000/-. The plaintiff returned the Demand Draft with reply notice dated 22.07.2008 denying the allegations found in the notice. The plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2010 expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and calling upon the defendant to fulfill her part within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. Therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance and injunction and in the alternative for recovery of the advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3. The defendant in her written statement avers that the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. All allegations and averments made in the plaint are denied. There has been an agreement entered into by the power of attorney of the defendant, one Mr. P.N. Raman who had a very limited power of entering into an agreement. The receipt of the advance amount is admitted. The question of measurement did not arise as the document was clear and it would have been necessary only if there was a doubt. The conduct of the plaintiff would clearly show that the clause was not meant to be acted upon. The vacating of the watchman cannot be taken as a condition to be fulfilled within a month from the date of agreement and th