Right to claim benefit u/s 27(b).

This batch of four appeals arises out of four suits which were tried and disposed of by a common judgment by (he learned Subordinate Judge Thanjavur. Appeal No. 199 of 1962 is against the decision in O.S. No. 29 of 1960, the evidence in which, by consent of parties, Was treated as evidence in the other suits. It will be therefore convenient to refer to the rank of the parties and the controversy in that suit, as the decision therein has to simply follow in the other three appeals.

The appellant in A.S. No. 199 of 1962 (hereafter referred to as the appellant) filed the suit O.S. No. 29 of 1960, claiming specific performance of an agreement of sale of the suit properties, of an extent of about 1½ velis, situate in the village Mela Uthamanallur, Tanjore Taluk. The plaintiff’s brother is the 1st defendant and the latter’s wife is the 2nd defendant. Minor defendants 3 to 5 are the children of defendants 1 and 2. Ammani Ammal, the 6th defendant, to whom the suit properties belonged died pending suit and on her death, her only daughter and legal representative was impleaded as the 7th defendant. The plaintiff’s case was that in Avani 1956, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the 6th defendant to sell the suit properties, about 1½ Velis in extent, for a sum of Rs. 9,000, that under that agreement the sale transaction was to be completed by the next 30th of Chithrai, i.e., April 1957, that on 19th September, 1956, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards part payment of the price and that the same was evidenced by a document signed and passed by one Thiruvenkadam, the son-in-law and agent of Ammani Ammal and in that document all the details of the agreement of sale have been embodied, viz., the price fixed at Rs. 9,000 the payment and receipt of Rs. 1,000, the balance of Rs. 8,000 to be paid before the next Chithrai, i.e., April 1957, and the sale was to be completed. The plaintiff’s further case was that on 30th October, 1956, this Thiruvenkadam, the agent of Ammani Ammal, wrote a letter urging upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction Without further delay and not to wait till Chithrai. at the same time warning the plaintiff that the 1st defendant, the plaintiff’s brother, was making efforts to purchase the properties. The plaintiff was obliged to file the present suit as he subsequently discovered that at the instance of the first defendant, his brothers, Ammani Ammal had executed three sale deeds all dated 29th December, 1956, comprising various items of properties including the suit properties, the Vendees under the sale deeds, being the first defendant’s minor children 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. In addition to the other evidence in the case, both oral and documentary, the plaintiff mainly relied upon the two letters given by Thiruvenkadam on behalf of Ammani Ammal, the Vendor to the plaintiff. The contesting defendants res:isteid the suit on the ground inter alia that no such agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and 6th defendant, that the two letters alleged to have been written by Thiruvenkadam purporting to be on behalf of the vendor, Ammani Ammal, are ante-dated and concocted documents and that in any event, the defendants Were bona fide transferees in good faith and for value paid without any knowledge of the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit properties, and in this suit, while claiming specific performance, he had deposited in the trial Court the balance of the price due by him. The other three suits were filed by the three minor sons of the first defendant for possession of the suit properties to the extent covered by the respective sale deeds in favour of each of the defendants which, naturally was resisted by this Veeramalai, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1960, and the sole defendant in all these suits on the basis of the aforesaid agreement of sale. The learned Subordinate Judge neg