Ratnavel Pandian, J.- The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 41 of 1969 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thanjavur, are the appellants. They filed the suit against the respondents-defendants 1 to 4 for specific performance of an agreement of sale, by directing them to execute one sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of items 1 to 36 of plaint A schedule and another sale deed in favour of the second plaintiff in respect of items 1 to 21 of plaint B schedule, for possession of the said items of properties with future mesne profits and for costs. As per the plaint allegations defendants 1 to 3 owners of the plaint schedule properties: entered into an agreement on 10th March, 1968 with the first plaintiff under Exhibit A-1, agreeing to sell an extent of 14 acres 52½ cents for a consideration of Rs. 500 per month and execute the sale deed on or before 10th September, 1968. On the said date of agreement, the first plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 2,000. It is alleged that it was also provided in the said agreement that in case defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute the sale deed on the stamp papers to be furnished by the first plaintiff and register the sale deed within the period as mentioned above, the first plaintiff was entitled to deposit the balance of the sale; price and treat the agreement itself as the sale deed and have it registered. Therefore, with the consent and knowledge of defendants 1 to 3, the first plaintiff purchased stamp papers and wrote two sale deeds on 30th July, 1968, one in favour of the first plaintiff and the other in favour of the first plaintiff’s son, his nominee, the second plaintiff herein. Defendants 1 and 2 were also representing to the first plaintiff that the third defendant was absent from the station and on his return the said sale deed written by the first plaintiff would be executed by all of them. In the meanwhile, the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 4,000 in all in addition to the advance of Rs. 2,000, from the first plaintiff, representing that they had to discharge some family debts. But, the defendants did not execute the sale deeds as promised. Thereafter, the fourth defendant who knew well the terms of the aforesaid agreement, came with the first defendant on 1st August, 1968, and requested the plaintiffs to exclude an extent of 4½ mahs of land in Ammapatnam Pangu from the properties to be purchased by the plaintiffs, since he wanted to purchase the said extent of land for a higher price. The first plaintiff did not accede to that request, but insisted on the total implementation of the agreement in his favour. As per the terms of the agreement, the balance of sale price due from the first plaintiff is Rs. 15,787.50. Thereafter, the plaintiffs learnt that by about 3rd September, 1968, defendants 1 to 3 had actually executed a sale deed in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of the suit properties for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 21,000 the actual sale price paid by him being Rs. 26,000. In fact the said sale was benami for the benefit of one Ratnam and the funds were also provided by the said Ratnam. Since the fourth defendant is a purchaser with knowledge of the plaintiffs’ agreement, he should be deemed to hold the property in trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs and is bound to jointly execute along with defendants 1 to 3, the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. The first plaintiff sent a notice under Exhibit A-6 calling upon the defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deeds. While defendants 1 to 3 did not send any reply thereto, the 4th defendant sent a reply under Exhibit A-7, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of the properties for value.

2. According to defendants 1 to 3, Palaniappa Thevar who promised to get them all financial aid for the construction of their family house, took the first defendant to the first plaintiff and asked the first plaintiff to purchase the properties of defendants 1 to 3 and the firs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document