K.M. NATARAJAN, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 to 7 are the appellants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale or in the alternative for return of the advance money.

2. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint can be briefly stated as follows:— The first defendant is the owner of the suit property and defendants 2 to 6 are his sons. The seventh defendant is the subsequent purchaser from the defendants 1 to 6 and defendants 8 to

10 are the tenants of the suit property. The first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,500/- from the plaintiff under a registered mortgage deed dated 19-1-1980, mortgaging the plaint schedule property for repayment of the said loan. On the same day, the first defendant and the plaintiff entered into an agreement, under which it was agreed that the plaintiff has to collect the rent from the defendants 8 and 9 and the same has to be adjusted towards interest payable under the mortgage. The plaintiff also lent a sum of Rs. 700/- under a promissory note dared 15-7-1980 to the first defendant. The first defendant negotiated for the sale of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 63,000/-. An agreement of sale deed dated 10-10-1980 was executed in duplicate between the plaintiff and the first defendant and as per the terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs. 4,300/- on the date of the sale agreement and the amount payable under the promissory note was agreed to be treated as part of sale consideration under the said agreement. Thus the total sum of Rs. 5000/- made up of these two items was taken as advance. The first defendant has agreed to complete the transaction on or before 9-9-1981 and agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration at the time of registration before the Registrars Office after deducting the balance amount payable under the mortgage. According to the plaintiff that he had been all along ready and willing to purchase the property and pay the balance of sale deed consideration as per the terms of the sale agreement and complete the sale transaction. The first defendant had been putting off execution of the sale deed on some excuse or other, and promising to get necessary income tax clearance certificate regarding the sale transaction.

3. While so, the plaintiff came to know from a lawyers notice dated 11-7-1981 sent by the seventh defendant to the ninth defendant, who is the wife of the plaintiff that he claimed title to the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 29-10-1980, said to nave been executed by the first defendant and calling upon the tenants to pay the rent and deliver possession. After realising that the defendants 1 and 7 colluded together and had brought about the purported sale deed in favour of the seventh defendant fraudulently and with a view to over reach the plaintiff, he issued a lawyers notice dated 25-7-1981 to the seventh defendant, marking a copy of it to the first defendant, setting out his rights under the sale agreement in his favour and also challenged the alleged sale deed in favour of the seventh defendant. Though the defendants 1 and 7 have received the notice sent by the plaintiff, the seventh defendant did not send reply. Only the first defendant has sent a reply on 5-8-1981 containing false and untenable contentions. It is stated that the seventh defendant must have been aware of the plaintiffs right under the sale agreement and must have brought about the sale deed improperly and speculatively and after the defendants nave colluded together and brought about the sale deed dated 29-10-1980. The purported purchase by the seventh defendant will not in any way affect the plaintiffs right under the sale agreement. Though the defendants 2 to 6 had no right over the properties in view of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the seventh defendant by the first defendant for himself and on behalf