ORDER :

Prayer : First Appeal filed against the Judgment & Decree dated 10.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.2492 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai (XVIII Additional Court), Chennai.

The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.2492 of 2011 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The defendant is the appellant in the appeal suit and the suit was instituted for specific performance. The contention set out in the plaint are as under:

Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company represented by its Director K. Ponnusamy. Plaintiff came to know that defendant was willing to sell his property in Survey No.34/2 to an extent of 2.30 acres agricultural land situate at No.23, Vengadamangalam Village. Defendant also represented to the plaintiff that adjoining to his land measuring 40 cents of land situate in Survey No.34/7 owned by one Mrs. Meenakshi Ammal and she also authorized the defendant to sell above said land. Plaintiff believing the words of defendant entered into sale agreement dated 12.02.2004 at Chennai, in respect of the suit property as well as the land owned by Meenakshi Ammal in survey No.34/07. Total sale consideration is fixed as Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only). Defendant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff at their office at Chennai as Advance. As per sale agreement, further payment of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) will be paid at the time of cancelling the mortgage deed entered into between Mrs. Pushpa Jain and the defendant regarding his property. As per agreement plaintiff paid mortgage amount of Rs.2,10,000/- on 14.02.2004 and took possession of the Title deeds in respect of the defendant's property. Plaintiff further paid Rs.8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) on various dates as stated in the plaint. Balance of Rs.5,90,000/- to be paid towards sale consideration. All the payment were made by the plaintiff at Chennai either by cash or by Demand draft. Plaintiff is always ready and willing to complete the transaction. But the defendant did not show any interest in receiving the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff, themselves approached Meenakshi Ammal and informed about the sale agreement entered in Survey No.34/7 to an extend of 40 cents. Meenakshi Ammal agreed that she only authorized the defendant to sell her land. Accordingly, she received the sale consideration towards her land and executed the sale deed in respect of her property and plaintiff took possession of that property from Meenakshi Ammal. Even though plaintiff approached the defendants several times to execute the sale deed, defendant is delaying the performance of his part. Therefore, plaintiff caused a legal notice on 14/12/2005 to the defendant calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. The reply notice dated 21.12.2005 by the defendant contains unwanted allegations. Plaintiff sent rejoinder notice reputing the allegations in the reply notice. Even though plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by depositing the balance sale consideration defendant is evading his part of performance. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit for specific performance on the basis of suit sale agreement.

3. The defendant disputed the allegations as well as averments stated in the plaint and filed a written statement as follows:

All the averments in the plaint are denied as raise except those thats specifically admitted by the defendant. There is no averments in respect of readiness and willingness from the date of agreement till the date of suit in the Cause of action. Hence the suit deserves to be dismissed. The signatory to the plaint is not authorised to institute the suit. Hence on that score also suit is not maintainable. It is admitted that sale agreement ha