JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.3 of 2016 modifying the judgment of the learned Camp Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam in O.S.No.1 of 2013.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of sale agreement dated 19.07.2012 or alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest and for costs.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the first appellant and his brother Krishnan succeeded to the property to an extent of 2.61acres in S.F.No.438/2 in Sirumugai Village. Respondent is a leasee in this property for thirty years. On 20.01.1992, respondent purchased an extent of 1.30 ½ acre of this property from the appellants and Krishnan. Again on 30.12.2005, he purchased 64 ¾ acres from the remaining extent of this property, from Krishnan and his son. Then respondent settled these properties in favour of his wife by two settlement deeds dated 15.11.2004 and 04.03.2008 respectively. He was cultivating tenant in respect of the remaining extent of 65 ½ cents in this property. A dispute arose between the respondent and appellants with regard to the purchased properties. Therefore, two suits were filed, one in O.S.No.148 of 2008 by the respondent's wife and another by appellants in O.S.No.217 of 2008. Both the suits are pending before the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam. On 19.07.2012 appellants agreed to sell the 65 ½ cents, the remaining extent in the above mentioned property for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. An advance of Rs.50,000/- was paid. A time limit of two months was fixed for completing the sale. Respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract by paying the balance sale consideration and complete the sale. When he requested the appellants several times for executing the sale deed, they prolonged it under one pretext or the other. They informed the respondent that they will execute the sale deed on 13.09.2012, but failed to come to the Sub Registrar's office at Mettupalayam to execute the sale deed. On 14.09.2012, respondent sent legal notice calling upon the appellants to be present on 17.09.2012 and 18.09.2012 for the execution of sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. First appellant did not send a reply but the second appellant sent reply on 24.09.2012. He admitted the sale agreement dated 19.07.2012, but denied the description of the property in the draft sale deed. Respondent sent a rejoinder dated 08.12.2012, with a view to give opportunity to the appellants and correct the date of sale agreement as 19.07.2012 instead of 19.06.2012. Notice was received by counsel for the appellants, however they have not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit.

4. Appellants admitted the trace of title, but it is denied that respondent is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property for thirty years. An extent of 1.30acre belong to the brother of first appellant was alone sold. Appellants are not aware of the settlement deed executed by the respondent in favour of his wife. The contention that Krishnan and his son sold remaining extent of 64 ¾ cents to the respondent is totally un-acceptable for the reason that appellants at no point of time sold any share of their properties to the respondent under the sale deed dated 20.01.1992. It is denied that respondent is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property measuring 65 ½ cents. Appellants never sold any share in the above said survey number, sale deed dated 20.01.1992 and 30.12.2005 will not bind the appellants. It is true that the sale agreement for selling 65 ½ cents was executed, but it is not correct to say that time is not construed as essence of contract. The claim of the respondent that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and requested the appellants to come to Sub Registrar's office