1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court cum Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, who had died during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.24 of 2007 for specific performance.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(i) According to the plaintiff, the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property measuring an extent of 3.24 acres by virtue of Sale Deed dated 20.05.1974 executed by one Rangaraj Pillai. Since the date of purchase, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner. The defendant agreed to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and for the total Sale Consideration of Rs.8,10,000/-. The defendant received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance on 19.07.2006.

(ii) At the time of execution of the Sale Agreement on 19.07.2006, the defendant informed that the original Title Deeds relating to the suit property was deposited with the Union Bank of India, Thudiyalur Branch, Coimbatore and a valid equitable mortgage has been created by the defendant in favour of the said Bank. The defendant requested the plaintiff that he needs at least Rs.5,00,000/- for clearing the said loan and for getting back all the Title Deeds from the said Bank. The plaintiff also accompanied the defendant to the said Bank and out of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid to the defendant towards the Sale Consideration, the defendant paid the balance amount due to the said Bank and collected the original Title Deeds relating to the said property.

(iii) The defendant assured the plaintiff that he will execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of any person nominated by her after receiving the balance Sale Consideration of Rs.3,10,000/-. Contrary to the assurance given by the defendant, he has not come forward to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also came to know from reliable sources that suppressing the existence of the Sale Agreement, the defendant, taking advantage of the escalation of the land value in and around Coimbatore, made hurried attempts to sell the property to third party.

(iv) The plaintiff issued a public notice through her counsel informing about the subsisting Sale Agreement executed by the defendant and the same was published in the Tamil Daily Dinamalar on 27.10.2006. The plaintiff also launched a protest petition in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Vadavalli on 13.12.2006 with reference of the registration of any document relating to the suit property. The plaintiff was keeping the balance amount of Sale Consideration ready and she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. On 15.12.2006, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and the defendant sent his reply on 20.12.2006. The defendant denied the execution of the Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff in the reply. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

5. The brief case of the defendant is as follows:

(i) The defendant denied the execution of the alleged Sale Agreement dated 19.07.2006 in favour of the plaintiff. Further, he has stated that the plaintiff is doing Real Estate business and that she purchased a bulk quantity of lands adjacent to the defendant's land and she was urging the defendant and threatened him to sell the property to her, because the land belonging to the defendant is the only access to reach the plaintiff's lands. The alleged Sale Agreement is created by the plaintiff and it is a fabricated and forged document. The defendant also specifically stated that he never received any amount from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff never accompanied the defendant to the Union Bank Of India, Thudiyalur