JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2016 passed in O.S. No. 102 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

1. The appellant is the third defendant in O.S. No. 102 of 2017 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He has filed the present appeal challenging the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court in O.S. No. 102 of 2017 dated 26.09.2016. The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein, as plaintiff, as against the defendants 1 and 2, who are the respondents 2 and 3 herein and as against the third defendant, who is the appellant herein.

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that originally the suit in O.S. No. 102 of 2007 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff only as against the second respondent/first defendant herein, who was the owner of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that the suit property was sold by the second respondent/first defendant herein in favour of the second defendant, who, in turn, sold to the third defendant and hence, he had taken out an application in I.A. No. 2 of 2011 to implead the defendants 2 and 3 also as parties to the suit. The said application was allowed by the trial Court on 01.07.2011. Thereafter, the first respondent/ plaintiff has also filed I.A. No. 194 of 2011 to carry out necessary amendments in the plaint and it was also allowed by the trial Court on 20.11.2011. Thus, during the pendency of the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, the defendants 2 and 3 came to be impleaded in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per their litigative status in the suit as plaintiff and defendants.

4. The averments in the plaint filed by the plaintiff, in brief, are as follows:-

(i) The first defendant is the owner of the agricultural land measuring an extent of 11.86 acres, together with a building with an extent of 400 square feet in Mavuthampatti Village, Navakkarai. The plaintiff approached the first defendant to purchase the aforesaid property, which is the subject matter of the suit. After deliberations, the plaintiff and the first defendant have entered into an agreement of sale dated 01.08.2006, whereby the first defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,54,18,000/-. On the date of execution of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as advance which was also acknowledged by the first defendant in the agreement dated 01.08.2006. As per the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2006, the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs. 24,18,000/- as further advance on or before 31.10.2006, provided all the formalities, which are required by the plaintiff's advocate, are complied with by the first defendant. The further condition included in the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2006 is that the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1 Crore on or before 31.01.2007 and to get the sale-deed executed in his favour.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of sufficient money to honour the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2006 and therefore, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations embodied under the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2006. Therefore, the plaintiff was periodically contacting the first defendant to receive the sum of Rs. 24,18,000/- before 31.10.2006, as has been incorporated in the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2006. However, as per the contract, it was the defendant who has to furnish the title deeds to the property namely patta, chitta, adangal etc. for scrutiny by his lawyer. This is more so that at the time of entering into the agreement of sale dated 01.0