1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2010 made in A.S. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2006 passed in O.S. No. 200 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Hosur.

2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff/appellant for specific performance.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The defendants 1 & 2 are brothers and the third defendant is the sister of the defendants 1 & 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on 10.04.1996 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,40,000/- on the date of sale agreement and agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within three years from the date of sale agreement, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Though the plaintiff had approached the defendants on many occasions to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed as per the terms of the sale agreement, the defendants have been evading to comply with their part as mandated in the sale agreement and not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The defendants, in response, have issued a reply notice containing false allegations. Pending the suit, the first defendant died and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative and arrayed as fourth defendant. Hence, the suit.

4. The averments contained in the written statement filed by the defendants 3 & 4 are briefly stated as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The execution of the sale agreement in respect of the suit property by the defendants, as alleged by the plaintiff, is false and the defendants have not executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property and not received the part of sale consideration on the date of sale agreement. According to the defendants, the sale agreement is a forged and fradulent document and they have also contended that in respect of the properties of the family, a panchayat was convened and in the said Panchayat, the signature of the defendants were obtained on blank stamp paper and making use of the same, the plaintiff, at the instigation of the second defendant, V. Ravichandran, has filed a false suit. The third defendant has instituted a partition suit against her brothers claiming partition in the suit property on the basis of the Will executed by her father and therefore, there is no question of the defendants joining together in executing the sale agreement in respect of the suit property. It is also stated that various criminal proceedings are pending between the third defendant on the one part and the plaintiff and second defendant and their men on the other part. In such circumstances, the question of the defendants joining together and executing the sale agreement, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property, does not arise. The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the second defendant and the second defendant, in order to grab the family properties, has instigated the brother-in-law namely, the plaintiff, to institute the false suit. The sale agreement has been created by the plaintiff and the second defendant with the help of their henchmen and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief.

5. The second defendant V. Ravichandran did not contest the suit of the plaintiff and remained ex-parte.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to 6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to 19 were marked. CW1 has been examine