A. SELVAM, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.165 of 2007 by the Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore.

2. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, have instituted Original Suit No.165 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court praying to pass a decree of specific performance in pursuance of sale agreement dated 11.03.2006 or alternatively to pass a decree in respect of return of advance amount with 24% interest per annum and also for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellants have been arrayed as defendants.

3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the suit property is the absolute property of the defendants. The defendants have agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 64 lakhs. Under the said circumstances, the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 11.03.2006 and on the date of its execution, an advance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs has been received by the defendants and subsequently on various dates, another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs has been paid to the defendants and in aggregation, the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. After execution of sale agreement dated 11.03.2006, a Power of Attorney Deed has been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs so as to change classification of the suit property. In pursuance of Power of Attorney Deed, the plaintiffs have made various efforts to change the classification of the suit property. But, all of a sudden, the defendants have cancelled the Power of Attorney Deed on 28.02.2007. The plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Since the defendants have evaded in executing a sale deed after receipt of balance of sale consideration, a legal notice dated 09.03.2007 has been issued to them, whereby called upon them to come to Registrar Office on 15.03.2007. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been filed for getting the reliefs sought therein.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred to the effect that the plaintiffs have approached the defendants to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 64 lakhs and to that effect, an agreement has come into existence on 11.03.2006. On the date of its execution itself, the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and subsequently on various dates, the first defendant has received a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and to that effect, endorsements have been made on the sale agreement, but the second defendant, due to demise of her mother-in-law, has not put her signatures. It is false to aver that on 20.06.2006, an acknowledgment has been made by the second defendant after receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, the plaintiffs have played a fraud under the guise of getting the Power of Attorney Deed so as to change classification of the suit land. It is equally false to aver that the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after per-pending both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in respect of the main relief sought in the plaint. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present appeal suit has been preferred at the instance of the defendants, as appellants.

6. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is the absolute property of the defendants and both of them have agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 64 lakhs, which culminated in execution of sale agreement dated 11.03.2006 and on the date of its execution, the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and subsequently on various dates, they received another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and in aggregation, they received Rs. 10 lakhs and despite of best efforts made