R. Subramanian, J.

1. The appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 60 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Thiruvallur.

2. The suit was filed, seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 on 12.11.2005. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had agreed to sell an extent of about 4 acres and 4 cents in various survey numbers of Thodukadu Village, Thiruvallur District and Taluk, for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- per cent. The total consideration works out to Rs. 10,10,000/-.

3. The plaintiff had further contended that, as per the agreement, dated 12.11.2005, the defendants should secure the encumbrance certificate, chitta, and adangal. Upon the production of the above said documents, the sale transaction is to be completed within a week there from. The plaintiff would also claim that the time was not the essence of the contract. Though the agreement Ex. A-1 covers a larger extent of property, namely 6 acres 40 cents, the plaintiff would contend that some of the properties were sold even prior to the agreement and some of the properties were discovered as not belonging to the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, excluding the same, the plaintiff had filed the suit, for an extent of 4 acres and 4 cents. The advance paid at the time of agreement was Rs. 50,000/- and the plaintiff had issued a notice on 25.01.2006, for an extent of 3 acres 50 cents. The defendants had send a reply on 03.02.2006 stating that, since the time prescribed for performance in the agreement had expired, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek execution of sale deed and they also offered to return the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-.

4. The plaintiff had also issued two other notices dated 03.02.2006 and 06.02.2006 demanding execution of the sale deed, as per the agreement. The said notices did not evoke any response from the defendants. The third defendant is the subsequent purchaser of some of the suit properties and defendants 4 and 5 are the mortgagees of portions of the suit properties.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit claiming that they had entered into an agreement with one Nithyananda Prabhu on 07.11.2004, agreeing to sell the suit properties for Rs. 3,000/- per cent, and since the said Nithyananda Prabhu was unable to perform his part of the contract, they were pressurised to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the first three items of properties, totalling to an extent of 1 acre 29 cents.

6. It was also contended that the agreement filed before the Court below is a forged/fabricated document. The defendants had further contended that the plaintiff himself had created the said document by filing up a printed paper brought with him by incorporating the details of items 1 to 3 only. It is also the case of the defendants that the other extents have been fraudulently inserted by the plaintiff without the knowledge and consent of the defendants. The endorsement relating to deletion of extents of 34 cents in Survey No. 159/04 and 1 acre 84 cents in Survey No. 173/04 are also denied by the defendants. It was claimed that the said endorsements had been created by forging the signature of the second defendant alone. A plea relating to material alteration of the agreement was also raised. The defendants had also raised the plea of absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. It is also claimed that the suit agreement was entered into, to get over a financial crisis faced by the defendants and due to the failure of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract within the time contemplated under the agreement, the defendants were forced to borrow from the outsiders and pay back the debts.

7. The third defendant, who is the subsequent purchaser, had claimed that she is the bona fide purchaser of the value without notice