JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012, passed in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur.

The appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.09.2012, passed in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur.

2. The defendant, who suffered a decree for specific performance before the trial Court, is the appellant herein.

3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as “defendant” and the respondent shall be referred to as “plaintiff”.

4. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :

 The defendant, who is a lessee in the suit property which belongs to Sri Thiyagarajaswamy Devasthana Annadhana Kattalai, administered by Sri Thiyagarajaswamy Temple, Thiruvarur (“the Temple” for brevity), entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 04.02.2004 to transfer the right of lease in favour of the plaintiff, for a sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-.

The suit property is a landed property, comprising of trees, plants and vacant land, on which, there is a saw-mill, three shops rented out to third parties, an office and the defendant's residential house.

On the date of agreement, i.e. on 04.02.2004, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant by way of cheque.

It was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- before February, 2004 and the balance sale consideration before July, 2004.

It was also agreed that the defendant has to discharge the loan which he has availed from Thiruvarur Vijayapuram Lakshmi Narayana Cooperative Bank and after discharge, to deposit the title deeds and other details relating to discharge, with the plaintiff. It was also agreed that the defendant has to discharge all his other liabilities with the advance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, which the defendant receives from the plaintiff.

? The defendant agreed to hand over all the original documents of the suit property at the time of registration, including vacant possession of shops, his house, office, saw-mill, etc.

? Pursuant to the execution of the agreement, the defendant received various amounts in the following manner :

The receipts of these amounts were duly endorsed by the defendant.

Since time was not essence of the contract, the plaintiff was hopefully waiting for the defendant to discharge the loan with the advance amount paid by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour, however, the defendant was reluctant in completing the transaction of sale and was avoiding the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 17.02.2009, calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in his favour.

The defendant sent a reply notice dated 18.05.2009, stating that the agreement, dated 04.02.2004, stood cancelled.

The plaintiff issued a rejoinder on 28.05.2009, denying the cancellation, for which, there was no reply from the defendant.

Hence, the suit for specific performance, with an alternative relief to refund the advance amount of Rs.6,65,000/-.

5. The defendant filed his written statement, admitting the agreement dated 04.02.2004 and receipt of various amounts from the plaintiff as stated above, but taking his defence as follows :

 The plaintiff has b