Judgment given by Appellate court held a bit sketchy.

1. The suit is for specific performance filed ‘by the first respondent herein against the second respondent on the basis of the agreement dated 14.11.1980 agreeing to sell the suit property, belonging to the first respondent. The second respondent claims to be the prior agreement holder in whose favour the first respondent executed a sale deed after the suit agreement. The appellant is the third defendant, who had purchased the suit property, pending suit. The consideration under the agreement dated 14.11.1980 was a sum of Rs.3,200 and Rs.2,000 was paid on that date. Two weeks later on 28.11.1980 another sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid and the balance was only a sum of Rs.200. As per the agreement time was four months’ for execution of the sale deed. Though the first respondent requested the second respondent to execute the sale deed in the first week of December the second respondent said that he was pre-occupied with certain duties and promised to execute the sale deed. Subsequently, he did not comply with the request. The first respondent came to know that the second respondent was trying to fraudulently dispose of the property by executing the sale deed in favour of the third respondent, and therefore, the first respondent’s son appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Mangalampettai on the date when the sale-deed was registered in favour of the third respondent. But the Registrar passed the order Ex-A3 that he had no power to refuse registration and that the first respondent’s remedy was to approach the Court for appropriate relief. Though the first respondent has always been ready and willing to perform the terms of the agreement the second and. third respondent were determined to defeat his rights and therefore the suit was filed. Pending suit the third respondent sold the property to the appellant who was impleaded as the third defendant.

2. The second respondent filed his written statement as follows:

There was no suit notice. The suit agreement is false and it has been concocted by the first respondent with the help of people who are known to him and that there was enmity between him and the first respondent and therefore, he had created the suit agreement to prevent him from selling the property to third persons. It was also stated that after the sale deed in favour of the third respondent, the third respondent had sold the property to one Nataraja Padayachi for a sum of Rs.8,500 and that the said Nataraja Padayachi was a necessary party in the suit.

3. The third respondent’s written statement was as follows:

There was no suit notice and the third respondent had no notice of the agreement in favour of the first respondent and that the first respondent had concocted documents to defeat the second respondent’s right and that in any event the property had been sold to one Nataraja Padayachi who is in possession of the suit property.

4. The appellant filed his written statement as follows:

He had purchased the suit property bona fide and without notice of any prior agreement and that he did not know anything about the pendency of the suit and therefore, no relief can be had against him who is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

5. The Trial Court found that the suit agreement was not a genuine document because the handwriting of the second respondent differs very much from his admitted signature in other documents. The Trial Court also rejected the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 as repetitive and artificial, and found that the first respondent was neither ready nor willing to perform his part of the agreement. The first respondent went on appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for specific performance. Against that, the third respondent who is the purchaser, has filed the second appeal.

6. The question is regarding the genuineness of the signature of the second respondent in the suit agreement. Ex-Al is the suit agreement dated 14.11.1980. Ex-A2 is the record of payment of Rs.1,000 a