A. SELVAM, J.

1. This Appeal Suit has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2012, passed in O.S. No. 553 of 2008, by the Additional District/Fast Track Court, No. II, Coimbatore.

2. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S. No. 553 of 2008, on the file of the trial Court, praying to cancel the sale deed dated 20.02.2006, executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and for directing the first defendant to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, in pursuance of sale agreement, dated 20.08.2000 and alternatively to grant a money decree against the first defendant for a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- and also for passing permanent injunction against defendants 2 and 3 from making encumbrance in respect of the suit property.

3. In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is the absolute property of first defendant and she purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed, dated 11.7.1980. The plaintiff and first defendant have entered into the suit sale agreement on 20.08.2000, wherein, the sale consideration has been fixed at Rs.18,75,000/- and on the date of execution of sale agreement, the first defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the sale agreement, it has been stated to the effect that the plaintiff, after paying balance of sale consideration, has to get a Registered Sale Deed from the first defendant within a period of 1½ years. As per the sale agreement, the plaintiff has to convert the suit property as layout sites and enter into sale agreements and receive sale advance from the prospective buyers. In the sale agreement it is also agreed to the effect that the first defendant has to give her co-operation to the plaintiff. Further, it is agreed that the first defendant has to put her signature in various sale documents. As per sale agreement, the plaintiff has converted the suit property into house sites and at that time, the Government has imposed restrictions in respect of registration of house sites. The plaintiff has made necessary efforts for removing embargo. On 6.1.2005, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The first defendant has refused to handover original documents. The plaintiff has requested the first respondent to extent the period from time to time. The first defendant has sold the suit property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 for a lesser price. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought therein.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the first defendant, it is averred that most of the averments made in the plaint are false, except execution of sale agreement dated 20.08.2000. As per the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought in the plaint. It is false to aver that due to embargo, the plaintiff has not been able to perform his part of the contract. It is also equally false to aver that on 6.1.2005, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. The first defendant has sold the suit property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 for reasonable price. The present suit is barred by limitation and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of defendants 2 and 3, it is averred that the present suit is barred by limitation and the defendants 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of prior agreement and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit to the extent indicated in the judgment. The judgment and decree passed by the