1. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:— The 2nd respondent, second defendant in the suit Neelaveni Ammal, is the daughter of one Chelvanayaki Ammal. The first respondent the first defendant, M. Kothandarama Pillai, is the husband of Neelaveni Ammal. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the properties comprised in the plaint schedule to the plaintiff for Rs. 12,500 and executed a registered sale agreement on 28.4.1972, marked as Ex.A-1, and received an adva nce of Rs. 1,300 agreeing to receive the balance at the time of execution of the sale. Defendants 1 and 2 undertook to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement within three months from 28.4.1972. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to do his part of the contract. Defendants 3 and 4 who claimed to be the subsequent purchasers in collusion with the defendants 1 and 2 brought about two sale deeds in their favour, marked as Exs.B.1 and B-2, respectively. The plaintiff on coming to know about the unlawful conduct of the defendants 1 to 4 issued a notice on 19.5.1972 to the defendants 1 to 3 and one Sreenivasalu Naidu, the paternal uncle of the 4th defendant. The said notice is marked as Ex.A-

3. Ex.A-4 is the postal acknowledgement showing the receipt of notice by the second defendant on 29.5.1972. Similarly Ex. A-5 is the postal acknowledgement from the first defendant for having received the notice Ex.A-3 on 29.5.1972. Exs.A-5 and A-7 are the unserved covers containing the notice issued to the third defendant and Sreenivasalu Naidu. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants 3 and 4 purchased the suit property with full knowledge of the agreement Ex.A 1 and the rights of the plaintiff under the same. Hence the plaintiff prayed for a decree for specific performance directing the defendants 1 to 4 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as stipulated in Ex. A-1 after receiving the balance of consideration.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 have not filed any written statement though they have appeared through advocates.

3. The third defendant filed a written statement raising the following conteations:—The suit property originally belonged to one Chelvanayaki Ammal, the mother of the second defendant and mother-in-law of the first defendant. The said Chelvanayaki Animals husband had left a son by his first wife. It was represented to her that in order to enable the second defendant and her husband to get the suit property she might make a testamentary disposition in favour of them. The first defendant who was in a posit ion to dominate her will secured a document, the registration copy of which is marked as Ex.A-8, on the representation that it was will. The said Chelvanayaki Ammal executed it without knowing the contents and believing that it was only a will. There is no valid attestation of the document and the document was not given effect to and acted upon. The said Chelvanayaki Ammal continued to be in possession of the property. Even if the document Ex.A-8 is true and valid defendants 1 and 2 have no power to alienate the suit property conveyed to them since there is a prohibition against any alienation till the death of the said Chelvanayaki Ammal.

4. Defendants 3 and 4 are the bona fide purchasers of the suit property for value without notice of any defective title. They were not aware of the alleged agreement Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement Ex.A-1, even if it is true, is not enforceable against the defendants 1 and 2 in view of the prohibition incorporated in Ex.A 8.

5. The fourth defendant in his written statement adopted the written statement of the third defendant and contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for value under the registered sale deed, marked as Ex.B-2. Only after ascertaining the encumbrances in the Sub-Registrars Office and after having been satisfied that there was no agreement as alleged by the plaintiff the defendants p