JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

Prayer:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of the Original side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2017 made in C.S.No.286 of 2013.

This intra Court Original Side Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge passed in C.S.No.286 of 2013.

2. The plaintiff in the said suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 04.03.2010 is the appellant herein.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the present appeal are:

(1) The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 04.03.2010 with the respondents who are the owners of the suit schedule property bearing Door No.46, Sadullah street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 for an extent of 1224 sq.ft together with undivided half share an extent of 195 sq.ft (out of 390 sq.ft) in the 6 feet common passage totalling in all 1419 sq.ft comprised in T.S.No.5868, Block No.131, T.Nagar Village, Mambalam- Guindy Taluk, Chennai District.

(2) The respondents herein being the owners of the suit schedule property agreed to sell the same to the appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. An advance of Rs.20,00,000/- was admittedly paid by the appellant to the 1st respondent. Some relevant clauses of the said agreement of sale are extracted for ready reference.

“Whereas the first vendor Mrs.Gomathi undertook to obtain release deed from her another son Mr.N.Raveendran and thereafter agreed to execute Settlement Deed in favour of her daughter Second Vendor Mrs.M.Vijaya

4. The first vendor shall obtain Release deed from her son Mr.N.Raveendran within one week from this date of agreement of sale.

7. The purchaser agreed to pay the balance sale consideration with two months from the date of executing development Power of Attorney to develop the property.

10. The vendors delivered today the vacant possession to develop the property for construction of building”

4. It is the case of the appellant that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement of sale and that the respondents delayed execution of the sale deed on the ground that there was a family dispute that had to be resolved before obtaining a release deed as contemplated in the subject agreement of sale. It is also stated by the appellant that Mr.Raveendran, 1st respondent's son and brother of the 2nd respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.11137 of 2010 on the file of the City Civil Court at Chennai and that the respondents brought it to the notice of the appellant that there is an injunction order restraining them from executing a sale deed in favour of the appellant and consequently the respondents sought for extension of time stating that they would get the interim order vacated and thereafter execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.

5. The appellant also stated that he sought to implead himself in the suit filed by Mr.Raveendran and that the application was rejected even before numbering and that subsequently the suit filed by Mr.Raveendran was also dismissed on 21.03.2013.

6. The appellant also taking advantage of Clause No.10 of the agreement of sale claims to be in physical possession of the suit schedule property. Besides specific performance of the agreement of sale, the appellant also sought for a relief of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

7. The appellant also states that he tendered the balance sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- on 22.03.2013 and called upon the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in his favour in compliance with the terms of the agreement of sale. However, it is the case of the appellant that the respondents avoided execution and registration of sale deed under some pretext or the other. Stating that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, he filed the suit in C.S.No.286 of 2013.

8. The 1st de