JUDGMENT :

T. RAVINDRAN, J.

Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. r/w Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. against the judgment and Decree on the file of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Thiruvellore at Poonamallee in O.S. No. 2 of 2006 dated 06th October 2012.

1. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree dated 06.10.2012 passed in O.S. No. 2 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Thiruvellore at Poonamallee, the defendant has preferred the First Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for specific performance.

4. Briefly stated, according to the case of the plaintiff, on the representation made by the defendant that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and has the authority to sell the suit property, pursuant to the same, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 10,24,000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 74,000/- as advance on 31.08.2003 to the defendant and on the same day, an agreement of sale was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and in the sale agreement, instead of August month, September has been written, however the agreement had been effected only on 31.08.2003 and six months time is stipulated for the execution of the sale deed, however time is not the essence of the contract. Originally the suit property belonged to Masillamani, the father of the defendant and on his demise, the defendant had secured the power of attorney deed from the other legal heirs of Masillamani by way of a registered power deed dated 03.04.1989 and however, even prior to the execution of the sale agreement dated 31.08.2003, one of the principals i.e. Mary rose had died and the defendant had no other document of title except the power of attorney deed and therefore the defendant had been directed to obtain the release deed from the other legal heirs of the deceased Masilamani and after the great efforts of the plaintiff, the defendant obtained the release deed from the other legal heirs of the deceased Masillamani by way of a release deed dated 17.03.2004 and thereby the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendant wanted to settle the suit property in favour of her children and the plaintiff towards the same, spent substantial amount and got three settlement deeds ready and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration and obtain the execution of the sale deed from the defendant as per the terms of the sale agreement, however the defendant had been delaying the transaction. Therefore the plaintiff was unable to get the approval from the appropriate authorities to complete the other formalities. The defendant had handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and pursuant to the same, the defendant had levelled the land and incurred expenses and while so, the defendant issued a notice dated 07.04.2004, as if, she is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and complete the sale transaction and the plaintiff sent a suitable reply to the same containing true facts. The plaintiff has spent considerable amount as detailed in the plaint amounting to Rs. 91,500/- with the object of completing the sale transaction. While so, the defendant attempted to sell the suit property to the third parties for a higher price. The plaintiff therefore levied O.S. No. 338 of 2004 against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property and the suit is still pending. While so, the defendant sent another notice dated 27.10.2004 requiring the plaintiff to fulfill his part of the contract within 31.12.2004, failing which, the sale agreement would stand cancelled and the advance amount would be forfeited. The plaintiff approached the defendant immediately to perform his part of the contract, however the defendant de