1. The plaintiff whose suit for specific performance or in the alternative for refund of advance was decreed for the alternative relief, is the appellant. Specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24/09/2007 was sought for by the plaintiff.

2. According to the plaintiff the 1st defendant agreed to sell an extent of 42 Ares 35 centiares equivalent to 316 kuzhies and 21/64 veesams at the rate of Rs. 3,550/- per kuzhie. The said agreement was reduced to writing. The plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs. 5 lakhs on the date of the agreement out of the total consideration of Rs.11,22,965/-. A period of 15 days was fixed for performance of the agreement. According to the plaintiff, as per the agreement, the original sale deed is to be produced by the defendant before execution of the sale deed.

3. The defendant had purchased the suit property under the sale deed dated 28/08/2000. As opposed to the recitals in the sale agreement, in the sale deed it was found that the suit property namely, an extent of 42 Ares and 35 centiares having in O.S.No:359/6B is actually covered by two resurvey numbers namely R.S.No:301/1 and 300/1B1. The sale deed dated 28.08.2000 under which the 1st defendant had purchased the suit property refers only to R.S.301/1. The extent of property in survey number 301/1 was only 15 Ares. At the request of the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to get the sale deed dated 28/08/2000 rectified.

4. The 1st defendant also appointed the 3rd defendant as his power attorney agent on 20/08/2008. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant neither took steps to rectify the sale deed nor came forward to execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement dated 24/09/2007. The plaintiff also came to know that the 1st defendant had cancelled the power executed in favour of the 3rd defendant on 13/10/2008. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that the 3rddefendant had sold the property to the 2nd defendant on 14/10/2008, after the cancellation of the power. The plaintiff would contend the sale deed was ante-dated as if it was executed on 10/10/2008 and was registered on 14/10/2008.

5. The plaintiff had issued a notice demanding performance 19/8/2009. The first defendant sent a reply claiming that the time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiff having failed to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated under the agreement dated 24/09/2007, is not entitled to demand specific performance. It is also further claimed that the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant is not valid. The 1st defendant would claim that he continues to be in possession of the property as the owner. Upon receipt of the said reply the plaintiff filed the suit on 05/09/2009 seeking specific performance or in the alternative for refund of advance.

6. The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was agreed between the parties that time should be the essence of the contract inasmuch as the 1st defendant is a French National and his stay at Karaikal can only be for a limited period. The 1st defendant would also claim that since the plaintiff was not ready and willing he is entitled to forfeit the advance.

7. Apart from denying the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance, the 1st defendant would also allege that he was betrayed by the 3rd defendant. According to him the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by the 3rd defendant is a fraudulent document and the same will not confer any title on the 2nd defendant. Apart from filing a written statement, the 1st defendant also filed a counterclaim challenging the validity of the sale deed dated 10/10/2008 registered on 14/10/2008. The said counterclaim was rejected by the trial court and the 1st defendant did not challenge the said order of rejection.

8. The 2nd defendant would contend that she is bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier agreement of sa