1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mathuranthagam, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.184 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mathuranthagam.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents were the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.184 of 2004 for specific performance and for permanent injunction.

3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and one Perumal Gounder are brothers and the suit property and other properties are ancestral properties. The father of the plaintiff settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant on 30.04.1959. The plaintiff and Perumal Gounder purchased part of the suit property jointly. There was oral division of the suit property and the suit property was allotted to Perumal Gounder. Since the said Perumal Gounder was unable to cultivate the land, the plaintiff alone was cultivating the suit property and paying waram till last crop. Perumal Gounder agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a Sale Consideration of Rs.83,600/- and he executed an Agreement of Sale on 21.10.2002. On the same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance. As per the Agreement, the balance Sale Consideration of Rs.33,600/- was to be paid on or before 20.03.2003. The plaintiff even after the Agreement, continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to pay the balance Sale Consideration. But according to the plaintiff, only the said Perumal Gounder has been postponing, on the guise of his ill health and family problem. It was also agreed that time is not the essence of the contract. The fourth defendant's family was always inimical towards the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant created a sham and nominal document to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. She is not a bona fide purchaser for value. She has not even taken possession of the suit property. On 17.07.2003, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants, for which they issued a false reply. According to the plaintiff, he was ready and willing to deposit the balance Sale Consideration as and when directed by the trial Court. The said Perumal Gounder died intestate on 14.10.2003, leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and therefore, they are bound to execute the Sale Deed to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The brief case of the defendants 1 to 3 are as follows:

According to the defendants, late Perumal Gounder executed a Sale Deed in favour of the fourth defendant in respect of the suit property for a valuable consideration. The sale proceeds were utilised to discharge the bank loans. The sale was open and to the knowledge of everyone in the Village, including the plaintiff. She sent a reply dated 28.07.2003 to the notice dated 17.07.2003 issued by the plaintiff. Perumal Gounder did not receive Rs.50,000/- on 21.10.2002 and he did not execute the Sale Agreement. The alleged Sale Agreement dated 21.10.2002 was denied by the defendants. Perumal Gounder received a sum of Rs.45,000/- by way of loan from the plaintiff. For the loan obtained, the plaintiff got a signature in a document. Perumal Gounder did not agree to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. He had no intention to sell the properties. Late Perumal Gounder signed the document only to get loan from the plaintiff. The defendants also denied the averment that due to ill health of Perumal Gounder the execution of the Sale Deed was postponed. The suit property was not properly described. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The brief case of the fourth defendant is as follows:

According to the fourth defendant, Perumal Gounder sold t