R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 made in O.S.No.6 of 2012, wherein and whereby the learned District Judge, Villupuram, has denied the relief of specific performance to the appellant/plaintiff and granted the alternative relief of refund of Rs. 21,49,425/- and further, directed the appellant/plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit properties to the respondents/defendants.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the suit as plaintiff and the defendants.

3. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit only as against the 1st defendant, who is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants 2 & 3 are the two wives of the 1st defendant. The defendants 4 to 8 are the sons of the 1st defendant born through the defendants 2 & 3. The defendants 2 to 8 got themselves impleaded in the suit by filing an impleading application before the Trial Court.

4. Due to subsequent developments, the plaintiff by filing an amendment application amended the plaint. The sum and substance of the amended plaint are as follows:-

The suit schedule property is a self-acquired property of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 22.10.2009 and on the date of sale agreement, the 1st defendant had received a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs from the plaintiff towards a part of the sale consideration. Under the sale agreement, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant that the plaintiff must pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/- within a period three months and the 1st defendant had also agreed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/-, and out of the balance sale consideration, the loan amount borrowed by the 1st defendant from the Indian Bank at Kandachipuram has to be discharged. Subsequently, on 24.10.2009 itself, the 1st defendant had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of one Krishnasabapathy. According to the plaintiff, by possessing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 9,50,000/-, he had approached the 1st defendant in person on several occasions and requested the 1st defendant to come along with him to Indian Bank at Kandachipuram, where the 1st defendant had borrowed agricultural & tractor loan by pledging the suit property, to discharge the loan and to get the document released, for the purpose of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But, the 1st defendant was evading to go along with the plaintiff to the Bank to release the document and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, on 29.12.2009 in the presence of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 83,981/- in the Bank towards the loan account of the 1st defendant. Again the plaintiff had deposited another sum of Rs. 2,48,708/- with the bank towards the tractor loan account borrowed by the 1st defendant. Even thereafter, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sale consideration. In the meantime, the Bank made attempts to initiate action on the suit property mortgaged by the 1st defendant with the bank. Hence, on 21.06.2011 the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards the loan account to stop the bank from initiating action for bringing the suit property for auction. Even thereafter, the 1st defendant has purposely not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff issued the legal notice on 19.12.2011, but the same was retur