JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, dated 28.04.2011, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2006, by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Parangipettai, dated 28.09.2010.)

1. Notice of motion alone was ordered in this Second Appeal.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.

3. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, dated 28.04.2011, wherein, the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2006, by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Parangipettai, dated 28.09.2010.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2006, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, for specific performance of Ex.A2/Sale Agreement. The first defendant, who is the vendor, original owner of the property has filed a written statement by stating that he has already sold the property to the second defendant and hence, the second defendant was also impleaded as a party. Thereafter, both the defendants have filed separate written statements alleging that that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his contract and hence, the suit property was sold by the first defendant to the second defendant.

(b) During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked; on behalf of the defendants DW1 & DW2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked; Court documents Exs.C1 & C2 were also marked.

(c). After going through the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court, by an order dated 28.09.2010, has dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved against the dismissal order, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.45 of 2010, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, wherein, the learned Judge by an order dated 28.04.2011, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and decreed passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant through video conference and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Mr.A.Muthukumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Courts below are erred in rejecting Ex.A2/Sale Agreement, on the basis of Ex.B5/copy of the sales register given by the District Registrar, when no one was examined in support of it and Registration Department was not authorised to issue the same.

8. Though PW1 could said that he was in a possession of the suit property, however I find that the pleadings and the evidence of PW1 are to the effect that the specific performance relief sought for only based upon Ex.A2/Sale Agreement dated 01.07.2003 not on Ex.A1/Sale Agreement entered between the first defendant(original owner) and the father of the plaintiff, assumes significance.

9. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that as per Ex.A1/Sale Agreement, dated 07.06.1971, an agreement was entered between the first defendant and the father of the plaintiff and the sale consideration at Rs.1,800/- and the same was paid by the father of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Ex.A2/Sale Agreement was entered between the first defendant and the plaintiff is on 01.07.2003 and the sale consideration at Rs.4,700/- and the plaintiff alleged to have been paid a sum of Rs.3,700/- whereby, the earlier amount of Rs.1,800/- was adjusted and balance amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be paid. Thereafter, the suit was filed on 08.04.2005 namely after one year ten months of the sale agreement and there is no pleadings or evidence to the fact that PW1/plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in respect