R. Subbiah, J.

1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 228 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has filed the said suit in O.S. No. 228 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the respondent/Defendant-Devasthanam to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,49,250/- and in the event of failure on the part of the respondent/Defendant, prayed the Court to execute the sale deed; for granting a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, their men, agents, representatives or any one from in any manner alienating the suit property or creating any encumbrance till the disposal of the suit and for costs. The trial Court dismissed the suit, against which the appellant has come forward with this appeal.

2. For easy reference, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as per their litigative status in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property – a Palm grove comprised in Survey Nos. 281, 282, 366/1 and 366/3 measuring an extent of 24.25 acres situated in Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District belonged to the defendant Devasthanam. Though the Defendant Devasthanam is in Chitoor District, the suit property is situated at Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District within the jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the plaintiff, on 15.02.1996, the defendant Devasthanam conducted a public auction for sale of the suit property. As the bid amount offered at the time of such auction was very low, the defendant Devasthanam decided to sell the suit property by private negotiation. In the private negotiation, the plaintiff gave his consent to purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.1,01,000/- per Acre. Such an offer made by the plaintiff was also accepted by the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money on 19.02.1996. On receipt of such payment, the Commissioner of Endowment Department, Hyderabad, on behalf of the defendant Devasthanam, sent a letter dated 25.03.1996 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to accord permission for sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff as required under Section 80 (1) (b) of The Andhra Pradesh Charities and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as The Act). Based on such letter, it is claimed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed an order in G.O. Ms. No.686, Revenue (endts-III) Department dated 14.06.1997 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 80 (1) (c) of the Act, accorded permission to the defendant to sell the suit property to the plaintiff by way of private negotiation. On the basis of such order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Defendant-Devasthanam wrote letters dated 18.08.1997, 22.08.1997 and 06.09.1997 to the Commissioner, Endowment Department seeking permission to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of the balance sale consideration. However, there was no response forthcoming from the Commissioner of Endowment Department to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff made several representations to the defendant expressing his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,49,250/-.

4. According to the plaintiff, inspite of several representations, he has not received any response from the defendant, therefore, he caused a legal notice dated 28.10.2006 to the defendant for which a reply dated 13.11.2016 was sent by the defendant stating that the existing lessee, who is in possession of the suit property, has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 268 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri which was decreed against which the defendant has filed A.S. No. 12 of 2005 on the file of Sub