1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1987, on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, is the appellant. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff died and hence his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 5. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, and the suit was dismissed and as against the same, this appeal is filed.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to Pattabiraman and the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the said Pattabiraman on 14.5.1977, for purchasing the suit property and as the said Pattabiraman refused to execute the sale deed, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.546/1978 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977, against the said Pattabiraman and the suit was decreed in favour of the first defendant. While so, the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 22.11.1978, in respect of the very same property, which is the subject matter of the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977, and O.S.No.546/1978 and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.41,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs.59,000/-. It is agreed that after the first defendant obtained the sale deed pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978, the first defendant should execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff as he was not in a position to mobilise funds to pay the balance sale consideration as per the sale agreement dated 14.5.1977. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration and the first defendant did not inform about the progress of the suit in O.S.No.546/1978 nor about the decree passed in his favour in the said suit. Whenever the plaintiff enquired the first defendant about the suit, he was giving evasive reply. In May, 1987, the plaintiff came to know that even in 1983, the first defendant obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978, and therefore, issued a notice dated 17.5.1987, to the first defendant and the first defendant received the notice and sent a reply containing untenable allegation. The plaintiff went to the village of the first defendant and made enquiries and came to know that some of the lands, which were agreed to be sold to him, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and a compensation of Rs.1,26,505.65 was awarded to the first defendant and the first defendant also sold the suit properties to the defendants 2 and 3 and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties to the suit. The second and third defendants were aware of the agreement of sale between the first defendant and the plaintiff. Therefore, they are not bonafide purchasers for value. The plaintiff also sent a letter to the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Villupuram, requesting him not to pay the award amount to the first defendant mentioning about the agreement of sale between him and the first defendant. The third defendant predated the sale deed and got the sale deed registered later and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 are not bonafide purchasers for value. Therefore, the first defendant is liable to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale and the suit is filed only for the remaining extent of lands, which are available with the first defendant and also the subject matter of sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff also prayed for alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.41,000/- with Rs.18,000/- towards damages in the event if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

3. The first defendant filed a statement denying the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, between himself and the plaint