1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant has preferred A.S.No.91 of 2010 and the 2nd defendant has preferred A.S.No.144 of 2010.

2. Since the issue involved in both the matters are one and the same, common judgment is being passed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

(i) The 1st defendant, who is the owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement dated 28.12.2003, for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.5,65,775/- and received a sum of Rs.2,65,775/- towards advance. Time stipulated in the agreement for completion of the contract is three years. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ever since from 28.12.2003. The plaintiff also paid the balance sale consideration. When the plaintiff demanded to execute the sale deed, the 1st defendant in some way or other postponing the same. The 1st defendant informed that he had income tax problems and insisted the plaintiff to make further payments. Consequently, the plaintiff made payments to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on various dates. Thereafter, the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was also paid. When the plaintiff insisted the 1st defendant to execute sale deed, the 1st defendant declined the same and informed that he has already sold the suit properties to the 2nd defendant. After verification, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant executed two (2) sale deeds on 28.06.2004 in respect of the very same suit property, i.e., one for Rs.1,69,500/- and another for Rs.3,12,2000/-.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, the sale deeds are not true and genuine and no consideration has been passed. The defendants colluded together and created the alleged sale deeds to defeat the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 20.8.2007. The plaintiff also made paper publication in Dinamalar on 24.8.2007 warning the defendants 1 and 2 not to encumber the suit properties. The 1st defendant received the notice and denied the sale agreement and requested the plaintiff to send a xerox copy of the sale agreement. The 1st defendant issued another notice to inspect the original. The 1st defendant is adopting dilatory tactics. The 2nd defendant issued a notice on 30.10.2007 seeking a copy of the aforesaid notice and on 06.11.2007, the plaintiff sent a copy of the aforesaid notice. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and take the sale deed. During trial, the 3rd defendant has purchased the suit properties, which is hit by lis pendens. Hence, the plaintiff seeks for specific performance and in the alternative, refund of advance amount with interest at 12% per annum and costs.

(iii) The 1st defendant has filed the written statement stating that he is the owner of the property. He denied the execution of the alleged agreement with the plaintiff. It is stated by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff created the sale agreement in order to grab the suit property. He denied the statement made by the plaintiff that he has been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is not admitted that the plaintiff postponed his part of the contract. In fact, the plaintiff in order to blackmail the 1st defendant, prepared the agreement and made endorsements. It is contended that the plaintiff is running a chit company in the name of “Rahukumar Chits Promoters (P) Limited, Saravana Chits, Dhanalakshmi Finance, Perundurai Financier and Chit Promoters. The 1st defendant participated in the chit and become the subscriber during 1990 to 2000. The plaintiff is also doing real estate business.

(iv) It is contended that the plaintiff was acting as a broker for the purchase of the suit proper