JUDGMENT :

S.S.SUNDAR, J.,

Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013 made in O.S.No.18 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.

1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2011 for the specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 04.06.2008 and for other consequential reliefs.

3. It is the specific case of the appellant that the suit property measuring an extent of 1.21.5 hectares [3 acres] in S.No.180/3 at Telur Village in Ariyalur Taluk is the absolute property of defendants, and they entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 04.06.2008 for selling the suit property at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. It is stated that an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as acknowledged under the Agreement of Sale and that the parties had agreed to perform the contract within four months from the date of the Agreement of Sale. It is the case of the appellant that, on enquiry, the appellant came to know that the Government is looking for an extent of 100 acres for SIPCOT to establish an industrial center. It is further stated that the officials of SIPCOT have also inspected the suit property as well as other properties to ascertain whether they are more suitable for their purpose. It is stated that on enquiry by plaintiff, he was informed that they have inspected four places and that one of the places would be acquired. It was therefore stated in the plaint that the 2nd defendant was requested to extend the time till such acquisition proposal is finalized by a legal notice dated 30.09.2008. Stating that the defendants after notice, started negotiating for the sale of the suit property with third parties, it is contended that irrespective of finalisation of proposed acquisition on behalf of SIPCOT, the plaintiff expressed his willingness to complete the sale, but the defendants have failed to come forward to execute the Sale Deed as agreed. It is also the case of the plaintiff that time is not the essence of contract.

4. The following passage in the plaint is relevant, and it is extracted as follows:

OTHER LANGUAGE

5. It is admitted by both parties that the suit Agreement was signed only by defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 10. The 6th defendant though was shown as a party, she did not sign. It is the case of plaintiff that other defendants promised to get the signature of 6th defendant.

6. The suit was contested by all the defendants and the written statement filed by the 4th defendant was adopted by all other defendants. The defendants specifically denied the genuineness of the Sale Agreement. It is their case that the 4th defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff as a loan on 04.06.2008 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% and the 4th defendant signed on blank stamp papers and blank conquer sheets as security for the loan. It is the further case of the defendants that by pressurising the 4th defendant, the plaintiff obtained signatures from all other defendants on blank stamp papers and blank conquer sheets and gave them to the plaintiff in connection with the loan obtained by the 4th defendant from the plaintiff. Every allegation and averment in the plaint was specifically denied. It is further stated that as per the understanding, the 4th defendant was paying interest every month and the plaintiff did not give a receipt or acknowledgement for the payment of interest on the blank stamp papers or blank conquer sheets signed by the defendants. It is also stated that the 6th defendant was not on good terms with the 4th defendant and hence, she did not sign in the blank stamp papers and blank conquer sheets.

7. In the written statement, the defendants also disputed the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contr