These two appeals arise from the common judgment in O.S.Nos. 652 & 684 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. O.S.No. 652/1989 was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The averments in the plaint was that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to late Sri M.Subbiah Pillai, father of the first defendant. Late Subbiah Pillai obtained title and possession over the property as per the decree and delivery list in O.S.No. 59/50 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Subbiah Pillai passed away on 9-2-1983 and as per the registered Will No.18/1979 executed by him all his right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties devolved on his three sons Viz.S.Gopalakrishna Pillai, the first defendant and S.Bhagavathi Pillai. On 4-5-1988 they jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the entire 20 cents for a total consideration of R.2, 50,000/-. The plaintiff paid advance of Rs.61001/- towards the total consideration. The period of agreement was 15 months. In the said agreement it was stated that an extent of about 5 cents out of 20 cents is involved in O.S.No. 506/83 on the file of the Munsiff’s court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery. While so, on 13-4-1989 Gopalakrishna Pillai and Bhagavathi Pillai executed sale deed No. 1244/1989 in favour of the plaintiff regarding their 2/3 share in the entire 20 cents. The first defendant was not in station at that time and his whereabouts were not known. N.Gangadharan, a tenant of the building bearing T.X.2/3255 in the plaint schedule property told the plaintiff that the first defendant had created certain document in favour of the 2nd defendant and her husband regarding a portion of 20 cents described in the plaint schedule. On further enquiry it was revealed that the first defendant had created false document styled as agreement of sale in favour of Sri. Jose Varghese, husband of the 2nd defendant, who is the tenant of T.C.2/3256 situated in the 20 cents property. The said Jose Varghese filed a suit O.S.No. 282/1988 before the Sub Court. Thiruvananthapuram and the first defendant had created sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant regarding a portion of 20 cents. The plaintiff sent a registered notice through his Advocate on 15-7-1989 demanding defendants 1 and 2 to cancel the said false and sham sale deed and execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff regarding 1/3 right of the first defendant in the 20 cents. In the said notice, the defendant sent reply raising totally false and baseless contentions. The sale deed created in the name of the 2nd defendant is a false and sham document unsupported by consideration. It is a collusive document created by the defendant to defeat and defraud the plaintiff. No title or interest passed on the 2nd defendant as per the sale deed. The sale deed was executed when the obligation to execute the sale deed was executed when the obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was subsisting. It was created without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and the amount shown in the sale deed as consideration is false and fictitious. The defendants are therefore bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff regarding the 1/3 share of the first defendant in the entire 20 cents of property and the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed regarding the said property on payment of balance sale consideration of RS.63,000/- due under the agreement of sale dated 4-5-1988 to the first defendant. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to take the sale deed regarding the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement.

2. The first defendant remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit is filed with a view to harass and vex the defendants as a counter blast against the suit filed by her for pa