Judgment :-

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2000 in O.S.No.47 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:

(i) The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an oral agreement to sell on 25.09.1989 under which the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former, the property described in the schedule of the plaint namely the plot and the house situated thereon for a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- in the presence of one Ramasamy, Chinnakaruppiah and Avudaiappan. A sum of Rs.1,001/- was paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant as advance, which is evidenced by a voucher.

(ii) It was also agreed between the parties that the sale should be effected on or before 04.10.1989 and in the meanwhile, the first defendant agreed to evict one Advocate Jeyabalan who was occupying a portion of the suit property and so far one Chettiar who was occupying the remaining portion of the house was concerned, the first defendant agreed to obtain a letter from him undertaking that he would vacate that portion by end of Karthigai of 1989.

(iii) It was also one of the terms of that oral agreement that a sum of Rs.25,000/- less the said advance of Rs.1,001/- would be retained by the plaintiff till the tenant Chettiar would vacate the portion of the suit property. The plaintiff was ready with the sale consideration. But, the first defendant did not perform his part of contract by evicting the said Advocate from the portion of the suit property and he has also not obtained such undertaking from the tenant Chettiar. Thereupon, the plaintiffs advocate notice was sent to the first defendant calling upon him to comply with the terms of the agreement for which reply was sent by the first defendant raising untenable claims. Hence, the suit.

(iv) However, even before filing of the suit, a portion of the suit property was sold by the first defendant to the second defendant who purchased it after knowing the agreement to sell between the plaintiff and the first defendant relating to the suit property. The third defendant as on the date of filing of the suit, continued to be in occupation of the northern portion of the said property under the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the son of the first defendant who joined with the first defendant in executing the sale deed in favour of the second defendant. Hence, he was also added as one of the defendants.

(v) The fifth defendant also was impleaded consequent upon the sale deed executed by the first defendant in his favour relating to the remaining portion of the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

4. Per contra, denying and disputing the averments/allegations in the plaint, the first defendant filed the written statement which would run thus:

On 25.09.1989, the plaintiff expressed his willingness to purchase the suit property and paid a meagre amount of Rs.1,001/- to the first defendant and in token of it, a voucher emerged. Even though, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property on or before 04.10.1989, he had committed default as he had no money to purchase. There was no valid agreement to sell between the first defendant and the plaintiff. The voucher will not constitute an agreement to sell. The southern half portion of the suit property was sold to the second defendant for valuable consideration so as to meet the first defendants urgent family expenses. The remaining portion was sold to the fifth defendant for valuable consideration. Accordingly, the first defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The second defendant in her written statement, detailed her case thus:

The second defendant is the bona fide purchaser of the suit property for value as per Ex.B.3, the sale deed dated 07.12.1989 without notice of such alleged