The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a bona fide purchaser.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the appellant/4th defendant challenging the judgment and decree, dated 18-01-2005, in O.S.No.139 of 1997 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995 and also for delivery of possession of plaint schedule property.

4. In a nutshell, the averments in the plaint are as follows:

Defendants 1 to 3 are absolute owners of the plaint schedule house property. Defendants 1 and 3 are parents of the 2nd defendant (son). Defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of their joint family borrowed several amounts on several occasions through cheques and a promissory note from the plaintiff for construction of plaint schedule house with promises to repay those amounts with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. While so, on 05-8-1995 they expressed their inability to repay the amounts due to the plaintiff and offered to sell away the plaint schedule property to discharge all their debts, for which the plaintiff accepted to purchase the said house for a valid consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. The defendants also accepted for the same and they calculated the amounts due and arrived at a sum of Rs.2,27,000/- as on that date and adjusted the same as part of sale consideration and defendants also received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance. Thus, the defendants received total sum of Rs.3,77,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and accordingly, the defendants 1 to 3 jointly executed an agreement of sale on 05-8-1995 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.73,000/- within one year and it was further agreed that if the defendants fail to receive the balance sale consideration and commit breach of the above contract of sale, the plaintiff has to deposit the balance sale consideration into Court and get a sale deed through Court as per law and further, the defendants agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards rent to the plaintiff for use and occupation from the date of breach of said contract till the date of execution of sale deed and delivery of possession of the suit house. At the end of stipulated period of one year, when the plaintiff asked the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute sale deed, the defendants requested another six months’ time as they could not secure alternative accommodation and accordingly the plaintiff waited till the end of March, 1997 and from 01-4-1997, defendants 1 and 2 are not available in the house and somehow they were evading to meet the plaintiff. While so, on 17-4-1997 the plaintiff came to know that defendants 1 to 3 are planning to create some sham, nominal, spurious and antedated document in the name of 4th defendant, who is well aware of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995 and if at all any such document is already created, it is not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendants committed breach of contract of sale dated 05-8-1995 entered in respect of plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit for specific performance as prayed above.

5. The case of the 2nd defendant, in brief, is as follows:

It is stated that defendants 1 and 3 are his parents and the 4th defendant is the wife of his close friend. The so-called payments under cheques and promissory note, as referred in plaint, are totally denied and the part payment of Rs.1,50,000/- also denied. Further, it is stated that the 2nd defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule house property as his parents given that house because he is the only son and mutation also taken place in Government records in the year 1980 itself. The plaintiff himself taken their