A. SELVAM, J.

This Appeal Suit has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2008, passed in O. S. No. 374 of 2005, by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. IV, Coimbatore.

2. The second respondent herein and one deceased Vadivel Gounder, as plaintiffs, have instituted O. S. No. 374 of 2005, on the file of the trial Court, for the reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction, wherein, the deceased appellant has been arrayed as sole defendant.

3. The material averments made in the plaint can be summarized as follows:

The suit property is the absolute property of the defendant. The plaintiffs have approached the defendant to purchase the suit property. The defendant has agreed the demand made by the plaintiffs. On 17.09.2003, the suit sale agreement has come into existence and total consideration is fixed at Rs. 40 lakhs. On the date of its execution, the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The defendant has agreed to execute a sale deed within a period of two years, after receipt of balance sale consideration. The plaintiffs, on several occasions, have approached the defendant to execute a sale deed after receipt of balance of sale consideration, but the defendant has given an evasive reply. Further, the defendant has not produced encumbrance certificate. The defendant has mortgaged a portion of the suit property in favour of a Housing Society and obtained a loan of Rs. 4,95,000/-. The defendant has constructed six shops and subsequently leased out the same for monthly rent. The defendant has failed to handover possession of the suit property as per terms of the sale agreement. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Now the defendant has endeavored to create encumbrance in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs have issued a legal notice dated 06.09.2005 to the defendant, but he has refused to receive the same and subsequently, another legal notice has been issued to him. After receipt of the same, the defendant has given a reply notice dated 29.09.2005. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for getting the reliefs sought therein.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred to the effect that it is false to say that the defendant has executed the sale agreement dated 17.09.2003. Further it is false to aver that on the date of its execution, the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The defendant has invested money in a chit company and for the purpose of recovering the same, a proceeding has been instituted, wherein, the first plaintiff has been appointed as Power of Attorney agent of the defendant. During the relevant period, the first plaintiff has obtained signatures of the defendant on various blank papers. The defendant, without raising any question, has used to put his signatures by way of believing the words of the first plaintiff. The defendant has started construction in the year 2003. At the time of construction, the first plaintiff has acted as an agent of the defendant. The defendant has not executed any sale agreement in respect of the suit property. During 2004, the defendant has fallen in illness. The second plaintiff is nothing but a henchman of the first plaintiff and both of them have concocted suit sale agreement by utilizing the signatures put by the defendant on blank papers. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the side of the plaintiffs, a replication statement has been filed, wherein, they refuted most of the averments made in the written statement.

6. In the additional written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred that the sale agreement dated 17.09.2003 is nothing but a fraudulent document. It is false to aver that due to escalation of price of the suit property, the defendant has refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant has giv