L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

This letters patent raises certain important questions of law, apart from presenting a complex set of facts. It arises out of a decree, dated 12.9.1986, passed by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole in OS No. 98 of 1981.

2. Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 in the suit are the appellants herein. The sole plaintiff is respondent No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 12.12.1978, EX.A1, against the defendant£ in respect of the suit schedule property, a house in a plot of about 300 square yards, situated in Tangutur Village, opposite to Sri Seeta Rama Swamy Temple and to direct the defendants to put him in possession thereof. Alternative relief in the form of a decree for a sum of Rs. 7,300/-, being the earnest money of Rs. 1,000/-, interest of Rs. 300/- and damages of Rs. 6,000/- was also claimed. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1, who was residing at Madras along with her children, defendant Nos. 2 to 5, is the owner of the property and that in the second week of December 1978, she came to Tangutur with a proposal to sell the said property. The Secretary of the plaintiff-Bhaktha Sangam (Society) is said to have negotiated with defendant No. 1 for purchase of the property and that bargain was settled at Rs. 24,000/-. An agreement is said to have been executed on 12.12.1978 and that on the same day, advance of Rs.1,000/- was paid, incorporating a condition that the balance of sale consideration must be paid by the end of April 1979.

5. The plaintiff pleaded that after defendant No. 1 executed the agreement in its favour, some Vysyas of Tangutur Village have approached defendant No. 1 and offered to purchase the property at a higher price of Rs. 30,000/-. On reliably learning that an ante-dated agreement was got executed in favour of defendant Nos. 6 to 8, by availing the service of a notary at Madras, the plaintiff got issued a public notice on 20.12.1978, asserting its rights under Ex.A1. A notice is also said to have been served upon the Joint Registrar, Ongole with a request, not to execute any document in respect of the suit schedule property and the Joint Registrar is said to have made an endorsement, to the effect that the parties have to avail the remedies in accordance with law. Notices were exchanged between the parties and ultimately, the plaintiff came to know that an agreement of sale was executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of defendant Nos. 6 to 8 and that was followed by a sale deed, dated 10.12.1978, Ex.B2. Pleading that the agreement of sale, dated 7.12.1978, Ex.B1, was a fabricated and ante-dated one and neither that agreement nor the consequential sale deed, dated 10.12.1978, would defeat the rights of the plaintiff under Ex.A1, the suit was filed.

6. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement on behalf of herself and her children, defendant Nos. 2 to 5. She pleaded that defendant Nos. 6 to 8 approached her at Madras with a request to sell the suit schedule property and after due negotiations, an agreement, Ex.B1, was executed, duly signed by her, her major children; and that minor children were represented by her. She stated that the property devolved on all of' them from her husband and she cannot undertake any transaction on her own accord. As regards Ex.A1, she stated that after Ex.B1 was executed, the Secretary of the plaintiff-society, PW1, came to her and made a request to sell the property and when she expressed her inability to accede to his request, in view of the execution of Ex.B1, PW1 is said to have asked her to sign on a paper with a promise that he would take care of all the legal issues. She stated that Ex.A1 was fabricated on the signed blank papers. She pleaded that once the sale deed was executed after receiving the entire consideration, rights of he