P. Somarajan, J.

This appeal is against the decree and judgment dated 22.3.2011 in O.S. No. 244 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Kochi by the plaintiff appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of advance amount as well as the amount paid by way of part of sale consideration.

2. The nutshell of the case is as follows:

The plaintiff entered into Ext.A1 agreement for sale with the first defendant for the sale of property owned by him at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per cent, on 22.11.2007. At the time of execution of Ext.A1 agreement an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by way of advance. Later, on 29.1.2008 another amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was also paid to the first defendant towards the sale consideration. But, the contract for sale could not be performed due to the default on the part of the first defendant, as he had not discharged the liability charged upon the property by way of a mortgage and hence the suit was filed for getting back the advance amount along with an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- paid as part of the sale consideration, totalling to an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- with interest and costs.

3. The first defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting the execution of Ext.A1 contract for sale and also admitting the receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of advance and Rs. 1,75,000/- as on 29.1.2008 out of the sale consideration, totalling to an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/-. It was contended by the first defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled return of the advance amount which comes to Rs. 2,00,000/- as there is a forfeiture clause in the contract for sale and that he had suffered loss and damages on account of the breach committed by the plaintiff. Due to the non performance of the contract for sale by the plaintiff, the first defendant was forced to execute a sale deed in respect of some other property to a stranger for a throw away price, so as to meet his requirements in connection with the studies of his son.

4. The second defendant entered appearance and contended that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property from the first defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- and that later on he had conveyed the property to defendants 3 and 4 for valuable consideration.

5. Defendants 3 and 4 also raised the contentions that they have purchased the property from the second defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15 Lakhs and they are the bonafide purchasers of the property and hence they pressed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The lower court dismissed the suit mainly on the reason that Ext.A1 is a forged and fabricated document and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the grant of reliefs prayed for on the basis of Ext.A1 agreement, by its decree and judgment dated 22.3.2011 against which this appeal is preferred.

7. Heard Smt. C.M. Charisma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N. Ratheesh, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The suit was dismissed by the lower court mainly on the ground that Ext.A1 contract is a forged and fabricated document. But, no such case was advanced by the first defendant in his written statement, but admitted the execution of Ext.A1 contract for sale and also the receipt of advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and another a mount of Rs. 1,75,000/- out of the sale consideration. The contention advanced by the defendants is that the period of the agreement was extended unilaterally by the plaintiff by making some addition in the contract by using the very same scribe and thereby the contract was extended for a further period of six months. It was also submitted that such an addition was made in Ext.A1 contract towards its last portion without the knowledge and consent of the first defendant and hence that part of the contract would not bind him.

9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the material alterations, if any, made in the contract would make the same unenforceable under law and as such a suit for re