JUDGMENT Ms. R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of judgment made in O.S. No. 295 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. II, Kancheepuram dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement of sale. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2. Briefly stated case of plaintiff is as follows: Defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for sale consideration of ` 15,37,200/- on 16.2.1992 by way of written sale agreement. Alleging that defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement, plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 for permanent injunction and also O.S. No. 367 of 1993 seeking for a mandatory injunction to restore the electricity service connection. Further case of plaintiff is that when parties to the above said two suits were frequently visiting the Court, they came to an understanding to settle the issue out of Court and accordingly a Panchayat was convened in the Court premises, on 22.2.2002 in which six persons including plaintiff and defendant took part and it was agreed that in continuation of earlier sale agreement dated 16.2.1992, the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed for ` 16,00,000/-. In addition to ` 1,00,000/- advance paid on the earlier agreement of sale, plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.35,000/- on 22.2.2002 and altogether defendant received sum of ` 1,35,000/- as on 22.2.2002. There was a sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of one Rajendran on 16.10.1995 and the defendant assured the plaintiff that he will take appropriate steps to cancel the said sale deed and execute a full fledged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has further averred that inspite of repeated requests, defendant was evading to execute the sale deed. After issuing Exhibit A-4 notice (16.6.2002), plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. 3. Stoutly denying any such oral agreement on 22.2.2002, defendant filed written statement contending that defendant is the owner of only 1.68 acres comprised in 3 survey numbers, whereas suit has been filed for a larger extent of 3.66 acres. Defendant has admitted execution of previous agreement of sale in the year 1992 in favour of the plaintiff and one Subramanian. Earlier, plaintiff filed two suits and both the suits were dismissed. Defendant has admitted execution of previous agreement of sale in the year 1992 in favour of the plaintiff and one Subramanian. Earlier, plaintiff filed two suits and both the suits were dismissed. As against the order in application for temporary injunction, C.M.A. No. 11 of 1997 on the file of Sub Court, Kancheepuram was filed by the plaintiff and the same was also dismissed. In O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and later she did not turn up to the Court for being cross examined and resultantly, the suit was dismissed for default on 19.7.2002 and petition filed by plaintiff to restore the suit was also dismissed. In the above said suit/litigation, plaintiff never mentioned about existence of oral agreement of sale in her favour. It is further averred that there was no occasion or necessity for the power agent of the defendant to go to the Court on the crucial date viz., 22.2.2002, on which date, the oral agreement is said to have been arrived at by the parties. Plaintiff never paid a sum of ` 1,35,000/- as advance. According to the defendant, there is no question of cancellation of sale deed dated 9.3.1994. Denying alleged oral agreement between the defendant and plaintiff on 22.2.2002, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, trial Court framed two issues as to “whether the alleged oral agreement dated 22.2.2002 is true” and “whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance”. On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and one Umapathy was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, Power Agent – M.A. Azeez was examined as D.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-11 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that two causes of action viz., 16.2.1992 and 22.2.2002 cannot be clubbed together. Pointing out the dismissal of the earlier suit – O.S. No. 1565 of 1992, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was not interested in purchasing the property. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that two causes of action viz., 16.2.1992 and 22.2.2002 cannot be clubbed together. Pointing out the dismissal of the earlier suit – O.S. No. 1565 of 1992, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was not interested in purchasing the property. Pointing out the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the improbabilities in the alleged oral agreement of sale, the trial Court disbelieved the plaintiffs case of alleged oral agreement of sale and held that plaintiff’s only intention is to cause trouble to the defendant and to prevent him from selling the property to any other person and on those findings, dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance. 6. Challenging the findings of trial Court, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff Mr. V.P. Rajendran contended that even though two issues were framed by the trial Court without framing the relevant issues, the trial Court elaborately dealt with cause of action, financial capacity of parties, etc., and expressed opinion on those issues. It was further contended that the trial Court failed to analyse the scope of the suit and that in the course of Court proceedings, appellant, defendant/respondent and others arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into an oral agreement of sale on 22.2.2002, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. It was further argued that the trial Court failed to analyse the intentional attempt of cheating by the Power Agent right from the beginning of the transaction. It was further argued that the present suit – O.S. No. 295 of 2004 is not a continuation of the original agreement and facts relating to earlier litigation were narrated only for the sake of completion to state as to how the oral agreement came into existence and while so the trial Court erred elaborately in referring to the earlier proceedings to non-suit the plaintiff. Stating that the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the sale consideration, plaintiff/appellant filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 seeking to direct the Indian Overseas Bank, Court Complex, Kancheepuram Branch to produce statement showing Bank deposit of ` 14,00,000/- in the account of Kamalambal. 7. Mr. Stating that the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the sale consideration, plaintiff/appellant filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 seeking to direct the Indian Overseas Bank, Court Complex, Kancheepuram Branch to produce statement showing Bank deposit of ` 14,00,000/- in the account of Kamalambal. 7. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the oral agreement of sale dated 22.2.2002 is alleged only with a view to get over: (i) limitation and (ii) bar under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. It was further argued that absolutely there was no whisper about the oral agreement in the chief examination of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 or in the application – I.A. No. 740 of 2002. It was further argued that having regard to the filing of earlier suits, it is quite improbable that the defendant would have entered into an oral agreement of sale and upon appreciation of evidence the trial Court rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit declining the the relief of specific performance and the judgment of trial Court warrants no interference. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, material evidence on record and the judgment of the trial Court. The following points arise for consideration in this Appeal: 1. Whether the finding of trial Court that there could not have been any such oral agreement of sale on 22.2.2002 suffers from any error? 2. Whether the alleged oral agreement of sale on 22.2.2002 purported to have been entered into in the Court premises is true and acceptable? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief specific performance? 9. Point Nos. 1 to 3: The plaintiffs suit is based on earlier agreement of sale dated 16.2.1992 and the subsequent oral agreement of sale on 22.2.2002. Defendant is denying any such oral agreement on 22.2.2002 and the defendant has emphatically denied having gone to the Court on 22.2.2002. When the defendant has denied oral agreement of sale, the main question falling for consideration is, whether the alleged oral agreement of sale pleaded in the plaint is true. As mentioned earlier, the agreement in question is said to be an oral agreement. The burden of proving the agreement is on the plaintiff. In the light of facts and various circumstances, case of plaintiff as to the oral agreement has to be examined. 10. As mentioned earlier, the agreement in question is said to be an oral agreement. The burden of proving the agreement is on the plaintiff. In the light of facts and various circumstances, case of plaintiff as to the oral agreement has to be examined. 10. The background in which the alleged oral agreement of sale was entered between the plaintiff and defendant is relevant to be noted. Case of plaintiff is that defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and executed Exhibit A-1 agreement of sale on 16.2.1992 agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of ` 15,37,200/- and the plaintiff has paid advance of ` 1,00,000/-. Alleging non-cooperation and that the defendant is trying to alienate the suit property, plaintiff has earlier filed O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Kancheepuram for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property. Defendant hotly contested the said suit – O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 by filing written statement. The said suit was dismissed, against which, the plaintiff filed C.M.A. No. 11 of 1997 and the same was also dismissed by the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram on 28.1.2002. While dismissing, C.M.A. No. 11 of 1997, a direction was issued to expedite the trial of the suit O.S. No. 1565 of 1992. Thereafter, the suit came up for final hearing in June 2002 and plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 on 11.6.2002. 11. Case of plaintiff is that while appearing in Court on various dates of hearing, both plaintiff and defendant frequently discussed the matter and arrived at a settlement to settle the matter out of Court in a Panchayat and accordingly on 22.2.2002, at about 3.00 p.m, six persons including plaintiff and defendant assembled together in the Court compound and convened a panchayat and in the said panchayat, oral agreement was entered into and the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of ` 16,00,000/- and on the same day, the plaintiff paid advance. Defence plea is that the defendant did not have occasion to go to the Court on 22.2.2002 and denied having entered into any oral agreement with the plaintiff. As pointed out earlier, C.M.A. No. 11 of 1997 was dismissed on 28.1.2002 and thereafter, the suit came up for hearing in June 2002. Defence plea is that the defendant did not have occasion to go to the Court on 22.2.2002 and denied having entered into any oral agreement with the plaintiff. As pointed out earlier, C.M.A. No. 11 of 1997 was dismissed on 28.1.2002 and thereafter, the suit came up for hearing in June 2002. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not produced any copy of order sheet (notes paper) in O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 to show that the said suit came up for hearing on 22.2.2002 on which date, the plaintiff and defendant happened to go to the Court in connection with the said case. 12. As pointed out earlier, parties were hotly contesting the suit – O.S. No. 1565 of 1992. The Order of dismissing the application for temporary injunction was challenged in the Appellate Court. The plaintiff has also filed O.S. No. 367 of 1993 for mandatory injunction directing the Electricity Board officials to re-connect the service connection and restore the electricity and the said suit was also pending. The correctness of the alleged oral agreement entered into for ` 16,00,000/- is to be examined in the light of the various Court proceedings. According to the plaintiff, apart from advance of ` 1,00,000/- paid earlier, on 22.2.2002, the plaintiff has paid further advance of ` 35,000/-. In our considered view, the case put forward by the plaintiff is quite unbelievable. If really there was any such agreement pursuant to the decision of the panchayatdars, since the parties were at loggerheads, certainly the parties would have reduced the same into writing. When the order dismissing application for temporary injunction was agitated before the Appellate forum and when the parties were directed to expedite the trial in the earlier suit O.S. No. 1565 of 1992, it is quite improbable that parties would have arrived at a compromise by way of an oral agreement of sale. This is all the more so when the earlier suit itself is based upon the alleged non-co-operation of the defendant in execution of the sale deed. 13. The improbability of the plaintiffs case is further evident by more than one aspect. As mentioned earlier, in O.S. No. 1565 of 1992, the chief examination of plaintiff was recorded in part on 11.6.2002 and the same was adjourned for continuation. 13. The improbability of the plaintiffs case is further evident by more than one aspect. As mentioned earlier, in O.S. No. 1565 of 1992, the chief examination of plaintiff was recorded in part on 11.6.2002 and the same was adjourned for continuation. It is pertinent to note that in her chief examination recorded on 11.6.2002, the plaintiff has not stated anything-about the alleged oral agreement of sale on 22.2.2002. Since the plaintiff did not turn up to complete the chief examination, the suit O.S. No. 1565 of 1992 was dismissed for default on 19.7.2002. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 740 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. for restoration of the said suit. If really there was any such oral agreement of sale on 22.2.2002, it must have been fresh in the mind of the plaintiff. Even in the affidavit filled in support of the said application, the plaintiff has not chosen to mention about the alleged oral agreement of sale. The non-mention of the oral agreement of sale in the chief examination recorded on 11.6.2002 and also in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 740 of 2002 for restoration of the suit falsifies the plaintiffs case of oral agreement of sale. 14. Assuming that there was oral agreement, let us examine the plaintiffs case. Since it was an oral agreement of sale, it is for the plaintiff to prove the essential terms of the contract like consideration, description of property and other essential terms of the contract. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the defendant, in the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that she paid advance of ` 1,00,000/- pursuant to earlier agreement of sale dated 16.2.1992 and on 22.2.2002 further advance of ` 35,000/- was paid and in all ` 1,35,000/- was paid. Whereas in Exhibit A-4 notice, it is stated that on the date of compromise and pursuant to oral agreement of sale (22.2.2002), plaintiff has paid advance of ` 1,35,000/-. The discrepancy as to payment of advance is irreconcilable. 15. Likewise, in the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that on 22.2.2002, about six persons including the plaintiff and defendant assembled altogether within the Court compound and convened a panchayat. Whereas in her evidence, the plaintiff has stated Selvaraj, Umpathi, Perumal, she and the defendant (totally 5 persons) were present. The discrepancy as to payment of advance is irreconcilable. 15. Likewise, in the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that on 22.2.2002, about six persons including the plaintiff and defendant assembled altogether within the Court compound and convened a panchayat. Whereas in her evidence, the plaintiff has stated Selvaraj, Umpathi, Perumal, she and the defendant (totally 5 persons) were present. Likewise, Umapathi – P.W.2 has also stated that plaintiff, defendant, himself, Selvaraj and Perumal (husband of plaintiff) were present. There is a material contradiction as to the number of persons, who were present in the alleged panchayat on 22.2.2002. 16. In his evidence, P.W.2 has spoken about the alleged panchayat on 22.2.2002 and stated that the parties have arrived at settlement and defendant agreed to sell the property for ` 16,00,000/- and in super-session of the earlier agreement of sale, the parties have entered into oral agreement of sale. In his cross examination, P.W.2 has stated that he belongs to the same party as that of the plaintiff. P.W.2, who is having the political party affinity, cannot be said to be an impartial witness. In our considered view, much weight cannot be attached to the evidence of P.W.2. 17. The variation in the description of properties and the right of the defendant only to an extent of 1.68 acres is yet another aspect, which militates against the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance in respect of 3.66 acres of land in six items of properties in Survey Nos. 188/2, 189/1, 192/1A, 192/1C1, 193/1B and 200/2B. The defendant is one Amruddin, who is represented by his power agent – Azeez. According to the defendant, he is the owner of only an extent of 1.68 acres of land, whereas the present suit has been filed for extent of 3.66 acres. It is seen from Exhibits B-2, B-4 and B-5 that the power agent – Azeez has purchased the land in S. No. 200/2BA – 0.74 acres and S. No. 193/1B – 0.17 acres, totally 0.91 acres (Exhibit B-2); S. No. 192/1C – 0.44 acres with well and 5 HP motor (Exhibit B-4); and S. No. 192/1A – 0.65 acres (Exhibit B-5). From Exhibits B-3 and B-6, it is seen that defendant -M.S. Amruddin has purchased the land in S. No. 193/1B – 0.16 acres with well, electric motor pump set (Exhibit B-3) and S. No. 188/2 – 0.51 acres and 189/1 – 1.04 acres, totally 1.55 acres. (Exhibit B-6). The suit has been filed against M.A. Azeez in his capacity as power agent of Amruddin, who is entitled only to an extent of 1.17 acres, whereas the suit has been filed for an extent of 3.66 acres, which is inclusive of lands in Survey Numbers owned by the power agent. 18. On 9.3.1994, defendant has sold 3 cents with a well in Survey No. 193/1B in favour of one V. Rajendran. The said Rajendran has not been impleaded by the plaintiff, but the extent of property sold to him has been included as a suit property. 19. The trial Court has extracted the paragraph (6) of the plaint referring to cause of action and observed that the plaintiff has come to the Court on two grounds viz., one basing on the previous agreement of the year 1992 and the subsequent oral agreement of the year 2002 and further observed that the cause of action must be one and not on two grounds. The trial Court further observed that the plaintiff must stick to earlier agreement or the subsequent oral agreement and that both cannot be clubbed together which the plaintiff has done in this case. Learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant submitted that without framing, any issue on this aspect the trial Court elaborately dealt with the issue referring to the cause of action and trial Court was not right in finding that two causes of action were clubbed. The finding of the trial Court as to the cause of action is only a passing observation while proceeding to determine the correctness of the alleged oral agreement of sale. We do not find any error in the approach of the trial Court or in its findings referring to cause of action. 20. In the written statement and in the evidence of D.W.1, it was averred that the plaintiff and the said Subramanian (agreement holder of the said agreement dated 16.2.1992) did not have sufficient means to get the sale deed executed. In her cross examination, plaintiff has stated that her sole income is only her pension and nothing else. 20. In the written statement and in the evidence of D.W.1, it was averred that the plaintiff and the said Subramanian (agreement holder of the said agreement dated 16.2.1992) did not have sufficient means to get the sale deed executed. In her cross examination, plaintiff has stated that her sole income is only her pension and nothing else. The trial Court referred to the submissions of learned counsel for defendant that when plaintiff has been solely depending upon the pension, she would not have been in a position to purchase a property for several lakhs of rupees. Referring to the said arguments, trial Court observed that the said contention of defendant appears to be true from every conduct of the plaintiff. Assailing the said findings, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has sufficient means to get the sale deed executed. To prove the same, in this appeal plaintiff has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2010 stating that in the year 2005 she was having bank deposits of ` 14,00,000/- and requesting the Court to send for statement showing bank deposits in the Account of plaintiff from Indian Overseas Bank, Court Complex, Kancheepuram Branch. 21. When the defendant has denied the execution and existence of the alleged oral agreement, the main point falling for consideration is, whether the said oral agreement of sale is true or not. Only if the Court finds that the said oral agreement is true, the question of considering the plaintiff’s means would arise. As rightly held by the trial Court, plaintiff has not established the said oral agreement on 22.2.2002. In our considered view, the main issue before the trial Court was the correctness of the alleged oral agreement of sale and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court had not gone into the question of “sufficient means” of the plaintiff. In such view of the matter, the question of summoning the Bank statement, that too, relating to the year 2005, does not arise in this appeal. Seeking for production of the bank statement, that too, relating to the period of 2005 will not in any way advance the case of plaintiff and the M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. 22. Seeking for production of the bank statement, that too, relating to the period of 2005 will not in any way advance the case of plaintiff and the M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. 22. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of (2007) 6 SCC 650 : (2007) 4 MLJ 367, the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. In the case on hand, except the oral evidence, there is no clear evidence to prove the essential terms of the alleged contract for sale, which is now sought to be specifically enforced. Even though the plaintiff alleges that she is in possession of the property, in the case of an oral agreement of sale, the defence under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act is also not available to a party, who alleges to be in possession of the property. As the plaintiff has not come out with a clear case, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The reasonings and findings of trial Court do not suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.3,2006 made in O.S. No. 295 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Judge – Fast Track Court No. II, Kancheepuram is confirmed. However, there is no order as to costs. M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.