A valid sale agreement must contain essential details, including a description of the property, to warrant specific performance.

1. This second appeal has been directed against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No.22 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Devakottai and in Appeal Suit No.29 of 2008 by the District Court, Sivagangai.

2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.22 of 2006 on the file of the trial Court praying to pass a decree of specific performance on the strength of the alleged sale agreement dated 28.11.2005, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

3. In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant and he agreed to sell the same for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-and to that extent the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 28.11.2005. The plaintiff has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as broker commission and on the date of execution of suit sale agreement, the plaintiff has paid an advance amount of Rs.52,000/-. Further it is agreed that the plaintiff should pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-on or before 22.12.2005 and despite of best efforts taken by the plaintiff, the first defendant has not chosen to execute a sale deed and instead he sold the suit property in favour of the second defendant by virtue of sale deed dated 23.12.2005 and subsequently a legal notice has been issued to both the defendants. The first defendant has given a false reply notice. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the second defendant, it is averred that the suit sale agreement is nothing, but false. The second defendant has purchased the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 23.12.2005. It is false to aver that the second defendant has purchased the suit property after knowing the existence of suit sale agreement dated 28.11.2005. It is also false to aver that the plaintiff has advanced an amount of Rs.52,000/-to the first defendant. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.29 of 2008 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiff as appellant.

7. At the time of admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been settled for consideration:

a) Whether the D2 is the bonafide purchaser for value without notice?

b) Are the Courts below correct and justified in granting a decree for specific performance under Section 20 and Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act?

8. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant and he agreed to sell the same for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-to the plaintiff and to that extent the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 28.11.2005 and the plaintiff has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-as broker commission and accordingly on the date of execution of suit sale agreement, the plaintiff has paid advance amount of Rs.52,000/-and further it is agreed that on or before 22.12.2005, the plaintiff should pay balance of sale consideration to the first defendant and the first defendant should execute a sale deed in his favour and since the first defendant has sold the suit property in favour of the second defendant and since the second defendant has purchased the suit property e