P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the first appeal. She filed the suit O.S. No. 80 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Salem against late Saroja and the respondents herein praying for the relief of specific performance directing the said Saroja and respondents 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 3 to execute a sale deed in her favour in respect of their 2/3 rd share in the suit properties or in the alternative directing the said Saroja and respondents herein to refund the advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and for a permanent injunction restraining Saroja and the respondents 1 and 2 from in any way encumbering or alienating the suit properties by way of sale deed or any other deed either in the name of the fourth defendant or his man or in any others name.

2. Saroja and the first respondent herein initially contested the suit based on the written statement filed by Saroja, which was adopted by the first respondent herein. The second respondent filed a written statement admitting the plaint averments. The real contesting party was third respondent/fourth defendant who contended that the agreement based on which the suit came to be filed was created for the purpose of defeating the claim of the third respondent/fourth defendant.

3. The learned trial Judge (The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem) decreed the suit granting the alternative relief of refund of advance amount directing Saroja and respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 to 3 to refund a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by them towards advance and part sale consideration with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization. As against the disallowed portion of the claim, namely the main relief sought for by the appellant/plaintiff seeking a decree for specific performance directing Saroja and respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 to 3 to execute a sale deed after obtaining the balance sale consideration, the present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.

4. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:

(i) Late Saroja, the first defendant was the mother of Umamaheshwari, the appellant/ plaintiff and her brother Nagarajan, the first respondent/second defendant. Nagarajan is the brother cum son-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff since Akilandeswari, the second respondent/third defendant, the daughter of the appellant/plaintiff has been given in marriage to Nagarajan. The third respondent/4th respondent is said to be the holder of an agreement for sale, which, according to the appellant/plaintiff, was created to defeat the lawful claim of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the first item of the suit properties described in the plaint schedule. The properties described in the plaint schedule were the separate properties of Venkatraman, the father of the appellant having purchased the same. As he died intestate, the same became the joint family properties of the appellant, Saroja, the first defendant and Nagarajan, the first respondent/second defendant and each one of them were entitled to 1/3rd share. Two adjacent properties were purchased by Venkatraman, the father of the appellant and his brothers Arunachalam and Krishnasamy in the name of their mother Nagammal on 19.01.1948 and 01.03.1948. But the said properties were jointly enjoyed by all the three brothers.

(ii) One Rukmaniammal, sister of Nagammal, purchased a property in 1935. She and her husband died issue less and before her death, out of love and affection she settled the said property purchased by her in favour of Arunachalam, Venkatraman and Krishnasamy, the sons of Nagammal by w