The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement due to full payment of consideration, while the defendants' release and mortgage deeds were declared null and void.

JUDGMENT :

(A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.)

The Plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants seeking the above said reliefs.

2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint is as follows;

(a) The defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of rear side entire first floor built up area measuring 2000 sq.ft.,together with 783 sq.ft., of undivided land right and the entire second floor open terrace together with 783 sq.ft., totalling 1566 sq.ft. of undivided land in the land measuring one ground 2083 sq.ft. situate in the premises bearing Old D.No.177/1-2, Sydenhams Road, Periamet, Chennai which is mentioned as A schedule property in the suit.

(b) The plaintiff has entered a sale agreement with the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of A schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,11,00,000/- and as an advance, the plaintiff paid Rs.20,00,000/- on 02.09.2013 to the 1^st defendant. The sale agreement was registered as document No.1976 of 2013 before the Sub Registrar Office, Periamet with the 1^st defendant. Since the defendants demanded higher amount, the sale deed was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,68,99,000/- on 04.12.2013 and as per the sale agreement, the defendants 1 and 2 sold the rear side entire first floor built up area measuring 1200 sq.ft. together with 783 sq.ft. of undivided land right and the entire second floor open terrace together with 783 sq.ft. totalling 1566 sq.ft. of undivided land right in the total land measuring one ground 2083 sq.ft. described as B schedule property. Though the entire sale consideration was paid for 2000 sq.ft of built up area to the defendants 1 and 2, at the time of typing of sale deed, the built up area was typed as 2000 sq.ft, but subsequently the same was altered as 1200 sq.ft. While being so, the 2nd defendant illegally released 1/6^th undivided share of rear side First floor built up area measuring 800 sq.ft. together with 704.13 sq.ft. of undivided land right in the total 2083 sq.ft. mentioned as C schedule property in the suit in favour of the 1^st defendant under Release Deed dated 07.04.2016 and on the same day, the 1^st defendant mortgaged the said property in favour of 3^rd defendant by a registered Mortgage Deed dated 07.04.2016. As per clause 4 of the sale agreement, it is agreed between the parties that the defendants shall hand over the vacant portion of the first floor rear side portion of the schedule mentioned property and after execution of registered sale agreement, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants handed over the entire A schedule property to the plaintiff. However, after execution of Release Deed by 2^nd defendant in favour of 1^st defendant, the 1^st defendant became the owner of 800 sq.ft. (C schedule property). As per the sale agreement, the 1^st defendant has to transfer the said 800 sq.ft. of superstructure in favour of the plaintiff herein. Therefore, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 29.06.2016, but the same was returned 'unclaimed'.

(c) When the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration for the A schedule property and there is no due of amount towards A schedule property, the defendants 1 and 2 only have committed breach of contract by releasing the C schedule property in favour of 2^nd defendant and mortgaging the same in favour of 3rd defendant. Thus, according to plaintiff, the acts of the defendants 1 and 2 are highly illegal. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance praying to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to perform the agreement of sale dated 02.09.2013 by conveying the C schedule property measuring 800 sq.ft. in favour of plaintiff by a Deed of Conveyance and for such other reliefs as stated above.

3. The case of the 1^st Defendant, as set out, in the Written Statement, is as follows:-

(i) The defendants 1 and 2 who are the absolute joint owners of the A schedule property, offered the same for a sale consideration of Rs.1,11,00,000/-, but during the relevant point of time, the 2^nd defendant who was residing abroad, did n