JUDGMENT :

R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the instant Civil Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,28,52,568/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Eight) from the 1st defendant, being the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,62,12,168/- together with interest at 12% per annum i.e. Rs. 66,40,400/- from the date of execution of Sale-Deed bearing Document No. 733 of 2014 dated 24.02.2014 registered with the Sub-Registrar Office, Kodambakkam, Chennai, till the filing of the suit and for costs.

2. The gist of the averments found in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in the instant suit, is as follows:

(i) The suit schedule property was originally owned and possessed by Mr. Buddavaraupu Narayana Murthy, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Narayana Murthy’) who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said Narayana Murthy, died intestate on 17.12.2012, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. After the demise of Narayana Murthy, the 2nd defendant along with the 1st defendant, approached the plaintiffs in 2013 for sale of suit schedule property. At that time, the 2nd respondent had shown the Sale Agreement dated 23.06.2011, alleged to have been entered into between the Narayana Murthy and the 2nd defendant. According to the said agreement, the deceased agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,62,88,000/-. Further, the 2nd defendant paid Rs. 25,00,000/- as advance sale consideration.

(ii) The defendants attempted to revive the said Agreement to Sale dated 23.06.2011, by seeking sale in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs agreed to execute a fresh sale-deed in respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the said agreement dated 23.06.2011 was rescinded. The advance sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs was agreed to be deducted. As per the new terms and conditions, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 4,95,46,250/-. The balance sale price was agreed to be paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs.

(iii) Prior to the execution of the sale in favour of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs received a part consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-. During the month of February 2014, the 1st defendant called the plaintiff and requested them to execute the sale-deed in his favour on 24.02.2014. By considering the request made by the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs reached the Kodambakkam Sub Registrar's Office on 24.02.2014.

(iv) In the Sub Registrar's Office, though the plaintiffs were ready on their part to execute the Sale-Deed on 24.02.2014, the 1st defendant was not ready to pay the balance due. However, the 1st defendant fervently promised to pay the balance sale consideration in the next couple of days after the registration of the sale-deed. Believing the said promise, the plaintiffs executed the sale-deed on 24.02.2014 in favour of the 1st defendant and the same was registered as Document No. 733 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Registrar's Office, Kodambakkam. During such time, it was recited in the Sale-Deed dated 24.02.2014 that the entire sale consideration had been paid to the plaintiffs in the following manner:

(a) Rs. 4,95,462/- has been paid by way of adjustment against the TDS amount of 1% payable on Sale consideration.

(b) Rs. 2,18,17,620/- was paid by various Demand Drafts drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank, Kodambakkam.

(c) Rs. 2,72,33,168/- was paid by various cheques drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank, Kodambakkam.

(v) As the plaintiffs did not receive the entire sale consideration from the 1st defendant, the sale-deed dated 24.02.2014 was vaguely worded as by various demand drafts, by various cheques. From and out of the total sale consideration, the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,10,50,788/- was agreed to be paid by the 1st defendant within a shortest period o