The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether the suit property was the self-acquired property of the first defendant and the intention behind the first defendant's signing of the agreement to sell.

The gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus;

2. The Suit agreement to sell Ex.A2 dated 10.01.1990 emerged between the plaintiffs on the one side and the first defendant on the other side, whereby the later agreed to sell the suit immovable property to an extent of 6 acres in S.No.28, Rakkipalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk in favour of the former. The suit property was purchased originally by the first defendant, vide sale deed dated 06.04.1962 from out of his own income and it is his self acquired property. Accordingly, he agreed to sell in favour of the plaintiffs as per agreement dated 10.01.1990 for a sum of Rs.85,000/-. The plaintiffs under Ex.A2 paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- and subsequently another sum of Rs.10,000/-also was paid, as revealed by the endorsement (Ex.A3) by the first defendant. The time stipulated for performance under Ex.A2 was nine months. However, the defendants turned turtle and had a volte face.

3. Even though the plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, there was no response from the first defendant. The plaintiffs notice dated 28.05.1990 (Ex.A4) issued to the first defendant evoked no positive response from the first defendant. However, the second defendant, son of first defendant sent the lawyers notice Ex.A6 dated 09.06.1990 contending as though the suit property was the joint family property and the first defendant has no right to sell the entire property. Whereupon the plaintiff filed the suit as against the first defendant for specific performance of the agreement to sell under Ex.A2. During the pendency of suit, the second defendant, the son of the first defendant and the defendants 3 to 5, the daughters of the first defendant were also added as parties.

4. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning, the averments and allegations in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement with the averments the quintessence of them would run thus;

5. The first defendant is the Manager and Kartha of the joint family comprised of all the defendants. As such, the first defendant had only 1/5th share in the suit property and he intended to alienate as per Ex.A2 only his 1/5th share. But taking undue advantage of the first defendants ignorance and illiteracy, the plaintiffs husband along with the plaintiffs, managed to get Ex.A2 signed by the first defendant as though the first defendant had agreed to sell the entire 6 acres of land. Ex.A2 was not read over to the first defendant before obtaining his signature in it. The second defendant did not sign Ex.A2 as an attesting witness. But it appears that the plaintiffs forged the signature of the second defendant in Ex.A2. The first defendant was not in receipt of any pre-suit legal notice. The first defendant received only a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 10.01.1990 and Rs.10,000 on 23.04.1990. But the alleged attesting witness Duraisamy was not present at the time of emergence of Ex.A3 endorsement. No attesting witnesses were present at the time of the first defendant signing Ex.A2. The first defendant signed Ex.A2 only under the impression that his 1/5 share was proposed to be sold by him to other plaintiffs. The first defendant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in selling his 1/5th share in the suit property, after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- which happened to be the remaining part of the sale consideration from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had no sufficient funds to pay the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the suit.

6. After impleadment of the defendants 2 to 5, all the defendants joined together and filed the written statement reiterating the averments as found set out earlier in the written statement of the first defendant and also by setting out the additional averments as under;

7. The suit property was worth Rs.6,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, at