1. This suit is laid for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 21.05.2007. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant, represented by its Power of Attorney, had offered to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.84,00,000/- and on the same day namely 21.05.2007, an advance of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. As per the agreement, 60 days was fixed for performance of the agreement. According to the plaintiff, the time fixed is subject to the eviction of the tenant who was in occupation of the suit property and handing over of vacant possession. On 13.07.2007, the plaintiff sent a letter seeking eviction of the tenant and called upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed as per the agreement. Since, the first defendant was unable to evict the tenant within the time prescribed and time prescribed was to expire, shortly an extension agreement was entered into between the parties on 20.07.2007 in and by which it was agreed that the tenant would vacate the premises by 30.09.2007 and registration of the sale deed shall be completed within 15 days there from. Except the said extension all other clauses of the agreement dated 21.05.2007 were reaffirmed by the supplementary agreement dated 20.07.2007. Since the first defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed even after 30.09.2007, the plaintiff had issued a telegraphic notice, demanding execution of sale deed on 09.10.2007 and had followed it up with the present suit dated 22.10.2007.

2. Upon service of summons, the first defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that it had already sold the suit property to a third party. The first defendant would also further contend that the sale deed has to be completed within 15 days from the date of the tenant handing over the possession or within 60 days from the date of the agreement whichever is later. Relying upon the said Clause, the first defendant would contend that the plaintiff has lost his right to seek specific performance of the agreement. The execution of the agreement was dated 21.05.2007, the supplementary agreement was dated 20.07.2007 wherein the receipt of advance of Rs.25,00,000/- was also admitted. The first defendant would further claim that the sale made by the first defendant in favour of one B. Saktheeswaran on 07.09.2007 was under the instructions of the plaintiff.

3. Upon such written statement being filed by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff took steps to implead the defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the suit. The second defendant is a purchaser from the first defendant under a sale deed dated 07.09.2007. It appears that the second defendant had in turn sold the property to defendants 3 and 4 on 23.07.2008. In view of the said two sales, the plaintiff took steps to implead the purchasers in Application No.6490 of 2009 and the said application having been allowed the defendants 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded as parties to the suit. The plaint was amended by including paragraph 7(a) of the plaint.

4. The plaintiff would contend that the sale deeds dated 07.09.2007 and 23.07.2008 are not binding on it. The prayers for declaration that the sale deeds referred to supra are not binding on the plaintiff were also included in the suit. The plaintiff also claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages.

5. The second defendant filed a written statement contending that he is a bona fide purchaser of the property by way of sale deed dated 07.09.2007. According to the second defendant, he was not aware of the suit agreement and as such he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the subsisting agreement of sale.

6. The defendants 3 and 4 filed a separate written statement claiming that they are also bona fide purchasers for value and therefore the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief for specific performance.

7. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed by this Court:

1. Whether th