The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of a sale agreement, and the court has discretionary power in granting specific performance relief, considering surrounding circumstances and the relationship between the parties.

The defendants are the appellants. The second appeal S.A.No.2014 of 2000 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2000 in A.S.No.25 of 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.04.1997 in O.S.No.113 of 1994 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzithurai.

2.The Second Appeal S.A.No.558 of 2001 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2000 in A.S.No.26 of 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.04.1997 in O.S.No.113 of 1994 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzithurai.

3.The brief facts of the cases are as follows:

The suit in O.S.No.113 of 1994 was filed by the plaintiff for a specific performance of a contract dated 23.09.1993. The first defendant viz., Baskaran Nadar was the owner of the suit property. As he was ill, he was admitted in the hospital and during such time he had obtained a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and later he agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.75,000/-. He executed a sale agreement on 23.09.1993. Later, the plaintiff came to know that he had also executed certain documents in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 in respect of the same property and refused to execute a sale in pursuant to the sale agreement and therefore, the suit is filed for specific performance.

4.The suit was resisted by the first defendant as well as by the other defendants. The first defendant totally denied the execution of the sale agreement and passing of any consideration. According to the defendants, the brothers of the first defendant were inimical towards the first defendant and they have set up the plaintiff and have created a forged sale agreement and therefore, the sale agreement is not true and genuine.

5.The first defendant is a bachelor and the defendants 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of Thanga Nadar, the first defendants another brother . The first defendant executed a "Will" in the year 1993 bequeathing his properties to his brothers Thangappan Nadar and Gopalan Nadar and to the defendants 2 to 4. As his brothers Thangappan Nadar and Gopalan Nadar turned inimical, he cancelled the "Will" and sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant and had also adopted the second defendant as his son . Therefore, the case of the defendants is that the sale agreement is not true and genuine and it is a forged one.

6. Based on the above averments, the Trial Court found that the sale agreement, which is marked as Ex.A1, was true and genuine and the same was proved by the plaintiff by examining the agreement holder, scribe, attesting witness, mother and sister of the executant. The Court also found that the 2nd defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Aggrieved by which, the first defendant had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.25 of 1999 and the defendants 2 to 4 preferred another appeal in A.S.No.26 of 1999 challenging the finding against them and the first appellate court by its common judgment, confirmed the findings of the trial court and thereby dismissed both the appeals. Against which these appeals are preferred on various grounds.

7. On admission, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law:- S.A.No.2014 of 2000:

"1. Whether the courts below is right in granting a decree for specific performance in the absence of any evidence regarding the same having regard to the specific provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?

2. Whether the courts below is right in not taking into consideration that the evidence on the side of the respondents are at variance with the specific pleadings in the plaint and the very recitals in Ex.A1?"

S.A.No.558 of 2001:

"Whether the finding of the courts below that the appellants are not bona fide purchasers for value is supported by evidence?"

8. Before going into the merits of the case, the admitted facts and relationship between the parties are as