C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 280 of 1998, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 5.6.2003 passed by the Sub-Judge, Kovilpatti. The Suit in O.S. No. 280 of 1998 had been filed by the First Respondent in this Appeal, seeking Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 19.2.1996 entered into between the First Respondent and the father of the present Appellants. The subject matter of the Suit is land and building and three commercial Shops bearing Door Nos. 16-B, 16-C & 17-M in Mathan Kovil Street, Old ward No. 17, New ward No. 19, Kovilpatti.

2. The Suit has been filed by Thiruneelapandian the First Respondent in his capacity as the Plaintiff, for Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale entered into between him and one Late Ramasamy Naicker. The Suit had been instituted against the Legal Heirs of Ramasamy Naicker, namely, his sons Subbiah, Kandasamy and Balakrishnan as the First, Second & Third Defendants and his daughters namely, Baby Animal and Rukmani Ammal as the Fourth & Fifth Defendants.

3. According to the Plaintiff, an Agreement of Sale was entered into between him and Late Ramasamy Naicker on 19.2.1996 for purchase and sale of land and building and three commercial Shops in Mathan Kovil Street, Kovilpatti for a total consideration of ` 3,45,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand only) and at the time of the Agreement, an Advance of ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) had been paid. In the Sale Agreement, the period fixed for performance was one year, namely, on or before 19.2.1997. The Plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the Agreement. On the very next day, on 20.2.1996, Ramasamy Naicker demanded an additional advance of ` 1 lakh. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the same and asked Ramasamy Naicker to come 10 the Sub-Registrar Office on 21.2.1996. It has been stated that though the Plaintiff was waiting in Sub-Registrar Office, Ramasamy Naicker did not come. However, an endorsement was made on the back page of the Agreement with respect to the demand for Additional Advance, but it was not signed by any of the parties. Thereafter, Ramasamy Naicker disappeared. Subsequently, the First, Second & Third Defendants issued an Advocate Notice on 16.3.1996 and stated that Ramasamy Naicker was a person of unsound mind and taking advantage of that situation, the Plaintiff had obtained signatures in blank Stamp Papers. The Plaintiff had replied to the said Notice, denying the allegations.

4. It had been further stated in the Plaint that the First, Second & Third Defendants had kept Ramasamy Naicker in their custody. The Plaintiff gave a Petition to the Collector on 28.1.1997 and also marked a copy to the Police Station. However, Ramasamy Naicker could not be found. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S. No. 178 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, seeking Permanent Injunction, restraining Ramasamy Naicker from alienating the properties to Third parties. That Suit was still pending on the date of the present Suit, against which this Appeal has been filed. Subsequently, Ramasamy Naicker died, leaving behind him as his Legal Representatives, his three sons and two daughters, who have been named as Defendants and who have also been impleaded in the other Suit in O.S. No. 178 of 1996, which was pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. Claiming that the Defendants as Legal Representatives are bound by the Agreement dated 19.2.1996 and further claiming that he is ready and willing to pay the balance Sale consideration, the Suit had been filed for the relief of Specific Performance.

5. The First & Second Defendants, Subbiah and Kandasamy filed a Written Statement. In the Written Statement, they denied the allegations that Ramasamy Naicker had entered into an Agreement of Sale; that the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the Agreement and that the Su