The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of summoning key witnesses and considering all the evidence in specific performance cases, and the court's authority to remand a case for further examination of witnesses and additional evidence.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 21.8.2003 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, in A.S.No.21 of 2002 confirming the judgement and decree of dismissal dated 18.12.2001 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, in O.S.No.217 of 1996, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit seeking the following relief: "to pass judgement and decree for specific performance of contract directing the defendants 1 to 4 to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit properties the plaintiff bearing the registration expenses, failing which the plaintiffs pray that the sale deed may be executed by the Court and for possession of suit items 1 to 3 and for costs."

(extracted as such)

(b) Written statement was filed by D4. D1 to D3 were ex-parte. Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues.

(c) On the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. On the defendants' side, the 4th defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 to D.W.4 and marked Exs.B1 to B7.

(d) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds, inter alia, thus:

(i) Despite the plaintiffs having taken steps to summon D1 to D3, who happened to be the original owners of the suit properties and who remained deliberately ex-parte, the Courts below failed to summon them and elicit out the truth from those witnesses.

(ii) Without appreciating the fact that shortly after the service of notice by the plaintiffs on the land owners as well as the father of D4, the sale deed in favour of D4 emerged, at the instance of D1 to D3, purely for the purpose of thwarting the interest of the plaintiffs.

5. Accordingly the following substantial questions of laws are found suggested in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal.

"1) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the failure to mention the date of agreement in Ex.B7 as mistake when not stated by D.W.1 or D.W.4 the scribe.

2) Whether the Courts below were justified in placing the burden of proof collusion as between the defendants on the plaintiffs/appellants under the circumstances of the case?

3) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the 4th defendant was a bona fide purchaser insite of the receipt of Ex.A4 by the father? The Kartha.

4) Whether the Courts below were justified in upholding Ex.B1?

5) Whether the Courts below were justified in not drawing any inference against the 4th defendant for the non-examination of any of the alleged vendors?

6) Whether the Courts were justified in holding that the possession of the defendant was in pursuance of Ex.B1?

7. Whether the Courts below were justified in placing any burden on the plaintiff a duty to enquire about the title of the defendants 1 to 3?"

(extracted as such)

6. Based on the available materials and after hearing partly both sides, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

"i) Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that Ex.B1 is not an ante-dated document despite the missing of date of Ex.B1 in Ex.B7 and also in view of the oral and documentary evidence put forth on the side of the plaintiff?

ii) Whether the non-examination of either of defendants 1 to 3, despite steps having been taken by the plaintiff to get them examine