JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 01.12.2006 passed in A.S. No.25 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram, reversing the decree and judgment dated 29.07.2005 passed in O.S. No.321 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villlupuram.)

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.321 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram. He filed the suit for specific performance of contract or in the alternative to direct the respondents/defendants to pay the advance amount of Rs.31,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum and for costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and in appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:

3.1. The suit properties which are dry lands in S.No.434/8 and S.No.434/10 of Venkatadri Agaram Village, Villupuram, measuring 0.31.0 hectare and 0.16.0 hectare respectively belonged to Krishnammal, the first defendant. The plaintiff is the son of the deceased Rajagopal Chettiar who is the brother of the first defendant. Initially Rajagopal Chettiar was agreeable to purchase the suit properties from the first defendant. In the meanwhile, the first defendant’s husband had orally agreed to sell the suit properties to one Govindarasu Gounder of Purushanur village, but as Rajagopal was interested in buying the properties in the name of his son Rajaram, the plaintiff, the first defendant’s husband withdrew his oral sale agreement. Thereafter, Ganesan, husband of the first defendant sent a letter dated 25.08.1983 (Ex.A1) to Rajagopal Chettiar as to whether he is willing to purchase the properties and give his consent failing which he (Ganesan) may have to proceed with his agreement for sale with Govindarasu Gounder. This letter was sent through one Mohan and also returned by Rajagopal Chettiar through the same person in which he had agreed to purchase the suit properties. Based on this, the said Ganesan did not proceed with the proposed sale with Govindarasu Gounder. On 30.05.1984, the first defendant agreed for the sale of the suit properties and received an advance of Rs.10,000/- being 1/3rd of the sale value to the first defendant and issued a receipt (Ex.A2). It is the contention of the plaintiff that since the sale transaction took place between the brother and sister, the sale agreed upon did not bear any time limit for remitting the balance sale agreement and simultaneously patta was obtained in the name of the plaintiff and kist was also paid. The remaining amount of sale consideration was also paid by the plaintiff in instalments in cash.

3.2. According to the plaintiff, it was only after the demise of his father on 14.10.1992, that the first defendant tried to sell the suit properties to others taking advantage of the situation that the properties were not registered in the name of the plaintiff.

3.3. In fact the plaintiff had leased out the suit properties to one Selvaraju son of Govindasamy Gounder and another Selvaraju son of Perumal Gounder both belonging to Purushanur Village and they were cultivating the land. Patta was also issued in the name of the father of the plaintiff and later transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 02.06.1995 (Ex.A13) which was acknowledged by the first defendant (Ex.A14) and countered by her through her advocate vide Ex.A15 totally denying the existence of any sale agreement between the two. The plaintiff was willing to perform his part of the contract but it was the first defendant who kept postponing the execution of the sale deed under some pretext and finally breached the contract by selling the suit properties to one Kalivaradhan. The said Kalivaradhan died and his son is added as second defendant in the instant suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the first defe