R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendants 4 to 6/Appellants herein, who lost their case before both the courts below, against the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2003, made in AS.Nos.24 and 30/2003, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2002, made in OS.No.188/1994, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the parties are hitherto described as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

2. The case of the Plaintiff/1st Respondent herein, as set out in the Plaint, is as follows:-

a. The suit properties belonged to the 1st Defendant, who entered into an agreement of sale with the Plaintiff on 24.2.1987 and the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards the entire sale consideration. Since the Plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration, time was not treated as the essence of the contract. At that time, the 1st Defendant was under the care and custody of the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant had decided to construct a Temple at Manavala Nagar and the said ambition was carried out by the Plaintiff by giving her own funds and funds of the third parties. The Plaintiff has spent a huge amount and the said Temple was named as Kalyana Srinivasa Perumal Temple.

b. Considering the Plaintiff's love and affection and loyalty, the 1st Defendant executed a Will dated 7.2.1987 with regard to the other properties of the 1st Defendant. Pursuant to the agreement, the Plaintiff was put in possession and the Plaintiff is paying necessary tax for the suit properties. The 1st Defendant has allowed to get rent and rental agreements were executed between the tenants and the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff suggested her brother's name to be included as one of the Trustees of the Temple. But, the brother of the Plaintiff Ragunathan became greedy and with a grabbing tendency, started to poison the mind of the 1st Defendant and gave evil ideas to the 1st Defendant. When the Plaintiff came to know about the same, she made several requests for completion of the contract by registering the document. Since the 1st Defendant was evading to do so, the Plaintiff issued a notice dated 27.6.1994, calling upon the 1st Defendant to register the agreement and to complete the contract. Now, the Plaintiff came to know that the 1st Defendant has entered into a fictitious transaction with the Defendants 2 and 3 with a fraudulent motive to evade and to get more money. The 3rd Defendant, who is the wife of late Sivaniah Nadar and the 2nd Defendant, who is a close relative of Sivanaiah, are the tenants in the premises and both are aware of the existing agreement with the Plaintiff. The Defendants 4 to 6 have created the alleged agreement of sale on 23.3.1994 with the 1st Defendant. They have created sale deeds in the name of the Defendants 4 to 6 under the sale deeds dated 12.6.1994, which were registered on 18.7.1994. The said documents are created subsequent to the suit in connivance with the 1st Defendant.

c. The 2nd Defendant is the brother of the Defendants 5 and 6 and the 4th Defendant is the father of Panneerselvam, who was working under Sivanaiah Nadar. The entire family of Panneerselvam also aware of the suit agreement. The Defendants 4 to 6 are not the bona fide purchasers. The alleged sale deeds referred to by the Defendants 4 to 6 and the agreements are concocted and the same are not binding on the Plaintiff and the same is hit by lis-pendens. Hence, the above suit has been filed for specific performance and for recovery of possession of the suit properties.

3. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st Defendant, it is, inter alia, averred as follows:-

a. The 1st Defendant is residing at No.7, Alagesan Street, Tambaram. She was at the upstairs of No.12, Kondamapuram Street. After she sold the said premises with the permission of Pandia Nadar, who is the purchaser of the portion of the build