The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of Specific Performance, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking the relief, and the court has judicial discretion to decree such suits based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

These Appeals are preferred against the concurrent findings dismissing the Appellants suit for Specific Performance and decreeing the suit filed by the 5th Respondent for declaration and for possession.

2. Appellant is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.126/1997 and Defendant in O.S.No.125/1998. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suits.

.3. Uncontroverted facts are that the properties in 1) T.S.No.41/2 -1.52 acres out of 3.78 acres with Well, electric motor pump set, service connection; 2) T.S.No.42/2 -3.42 acres and 3) T.S.No.216/11 - 0.96 acre originally belonged to Namasivayam. He owned a total extent of 8.20 acres. The said Namasivayam had executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 12. 1989 empowering his son Sampath kumar, 3rd Respondent to deal with all the properties including suit properties. Appellant was the attesting witness in Ex.A1 Power of Attorney deed. Thereafter, he had purchased an extent of 2.26 acres out of 8.20 acres from 3rd Respondent Sampath kumar under Ex.A6 registered sale deed dated 13.04.1992. On 06.05.1997 under Ex.A2 registered sale deed, 5th Respondent Rani in S.A.No.280/2007 purchased the suit property in T.S.No.216/11 to an extent of 0.96 acre.

4. Case of the Appellant is that Namasivayam agreed to sell the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs.1,47,500/- and received a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- as advance and executed Ex.B4 agreement of sale on 110. 1995. Sale was agreed to be completed within a period of three months. It is the further case of Appellant that he has paid further sum of Rs.5,000/- to the said Namasivayam. According to the Appellant, since Namasivayam was not forthcoming to perform his part of contract, he filed O.S.No.126/1997 for Specific Performance. Appellant also contended that he had been in lawful possession of the properties from 1982 as he was put in possession of the suit properties as lessee.

5. Respondents resisted the suit contending that Appellant was permitted to look after the properties from 1982, since 1st Respondent and others were living in Madras. As per Ex.B9/Ex.A6, 3rd Respondent Sampath kumar had executed sale deed in favour of the Appellant in T.S.No.41/2 to an extent of 2.26 acres. 3rd Respondent had also executed Ex.A2 sale deed dated 06.05.1997 and sold 96 cents in T.S.No.216/11 to 5th Respondent Rani. According to the Respondents, Ex.B4 agreement of sale was not executed and the same is fabricated one.

6. On the strength of Ex.A2 sale deed, 5th Respondent Rani filed suit in O.S.No.256/1997 before District Munsif Court, Arni for declaration and recovery of possession and for mesne profits. Later at the instance of Appellant, the said suit was transferred to Sub Court, Arni and re-numbered as O.S.No.125/1998.

.7. Appellant resisted the suit O.S.No.125/1998 contending that he has been in lawful possession of the property as a lessee in the property and that he entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.B4) with Namasivayam. Appellant contended that Ex.A2 sale deed in favour of the 5th Respondent was sham and nominal and not binding upon the Appellant who already entered into an agreement of sale with Namasivayam under Ex.B4.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings, trial court framed relevant Issues. In the trial court, both suits were taken up together and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.125/1998. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trail court held that Ex.B4 agreement of sale is not a genuine one and Appellant was not entitled to get sale deed nor entitled to get back the alleged advance amount. Trial court further held that Appellant having attested in Ex.A1 deed of Power of Attorney could not have taken Ex.B4 agreement of sale from Namasivayam and on those findings dismissed the Appellants suit for Specific Performance and decreed the suit filed by the 5th Respondent Rani for declaration and possession.

9. Confirming the findings of the trial court, Appeals preferred by Appella