A party seeking specific performance of an agreement must prove its genuineness and the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation. Where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, the court will scrutinize the transaction with greater care to ensure that the weaker party was not unduly influenced or taken advantage of.

1. A.S. No. 1372 of 1988 arises from O.S. No. 100 of 1985, on the file of Sub Court, Dharapuram. Defendants 2 and 4 to 6 in that suit are the appellants herein. Plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are the respondents therein. A.S. No. 544 of 1989 arises from O.S. 29 of 1987, on the file of the same Court. Plaintiff therein is the appellant before this Court. A.S. No. 1153 of 1990 arises from O.S. No.

114 of 1987, Sub Court, Dharapuram. Plaintiffs in that suit are the appellants herein.

2. Parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in O.S. No. 100 of 1985, which is a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. 2nd defendant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1987, which is a suit for declaration and partition. Defendants 4 and 5 are plaintiffs in O.S. 114 of 1987. That is a suit for declaration of title over the plaint property therein and to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the property.

3. Since the parties are common and in all the three suits most of the properties are also common, joint trial was ordered and evidence was taken in O.S. 100 of 1985.

4. Material averments in O.S. No. 100 of 1985 may be stated as follows:—

Plaintiffs are the sons-in-law of the 3rd defendant. The subject-matter of the suit is property having more than six and odd acres of land which admittedly belonged to late Chinnammal, who is the wife of the first defendant. After filing written statement, first defendant died. Second defendant is the only son of Chinnammal and deceased 1st defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are their daughters. 5th defendant is the son of the 4th defendant; 6th defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. It is the plaintiffs case that first defendant and Chinnammal owned separate properties and they were leading a very decent life from out of the income from the properties. They also celebrated the marriage of their daughters defendants 3 and 4, and whatever gift that could be given at that time was also given according to their family status. It is said that the liberal act of first defendant along with his wife, late Chinnammal, was not liked by second defendant, and there was some misunderstanding between them. In view of that, the aged parents, i.e. , the first defendant and his wife were living separately for more than ten years prior to the institution of the suit, in a place called Palla Kadu. It is said that their son, second defendant, did not even assist them in cultivation, and from 1977 onwards, first plaintiff being the son-in-law of the third defendant, was actually in possession of the property, and was giving the income to Chinnammal.

5. Second defendant was scheming to knock off the properties to himself, whereas defendants 3 and 4 were equally interested in getting the properties. In spite of repeated demands, late Chinnammal was not willing to convey either the whole or any portion of her properties either to the son or any one of the daughters. In view of the adamant attitude of late Chinnammal, defendants 2 to 4 were annoyed, and they were not co-operating with their parents. Therefore, there was some difficulty for the aged parents in having a decent living. They thought of selling the property and converting the same into hard cash so that in their last days they could live with comfort and convenience. The plaint property was offered for sale, and the offer was open for more than three months in 1984 and in the beginning of 1985. One or two persons who wanted to purchase the properties from Chinnammal were threatened by defendants 2 to 4, and, therefore, the transaction could not materialise. Thereafter, Chinnammal offered to sell the properties to plaintiffs. After bargain, the price was fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is said that the negotiation was carried on for nearly 1 1/2 months, after which the sale agreement was entered into in writing on 4.4.1985, evidenced by Ex. A-2 in the case. It is further said that both the sons-in-law of third defendant paid Rs. 1,25,000