N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. The main appeal has been filed by the defendants against the decree and judgment dated 19.11.2011 in O.S. No. 6 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Karur. granting the relief of specific performance of the suit property. The facts of the case are as follows:

The contention of the first petitioner is that he entered into a sale agreement dated 16.04.2007 with the respondent herein, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 12,75,000/-. The properties are landed properties comprised in various survey numbers. The respondent herein agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,51,100/- towards advance and out of which Rs. 11,66,100/- was paid by way of demand draft and Rs. 85,000/- was paid by way of cash. Towards stamp duty, registration charges and balance sale consideration, Rs. 24,000/- was required to be paid at the time of execution of sale. Time for execution of sale deed was fixed at six months.

2. After entering into a sale agreement, the respondent/plaintiff left for USA wherein he has been residing. There was a failure on the part of the first Appellant/first Defendant to execute the sale as per the sale agreement dated 16.4.2007. Hence the respondent/plaintiff issued lawyers notice dated 10.11.2008, calling upon the first appellant to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale. The said notice was refused to be received. Therefore, the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 16.4.2007 was filed by the respondent.

3. The first appellant/first defendant denied offering the property for sale to the respondent/plaintiff stating that the sale agreement was a forged one and he never executed the sale agreement and no consideration was passed on. The first appellant is not the absolute owner of the suit property and his two sisters have got shares.

4. It was contended that the petitioner and respondents were trustees of "Madhavi Memorial Trust". Taking advantage of the respondent's acquaintance with the first petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff forged the signature of the 1st petitioner and created the sale agreement. He denied the service of notice on him. Further, it was contended that the respondent/plaintiff and the 1st appellant/1st defendant had dealings for the purchase of Dyeing factory at Karur. The 1st appellant sent $120,000/- dollars for the said transaction. For the said transaction, the respondent/plaintiff expressed his intention to pay the amount due to the 1st appellant by way of demand-draft, directly to the sellers from whom the 1st appellant proposed to purchase the property. The 1st appellant, as power agent of his daughters along with his two sisters sold a portion of the suit property to one S. Jagadeesh and Mr. K. Subramanian, who are second and third appellants herein through a sale deed dated 3.3.2009 for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

5. The second and third appellants contended that the 1st appellant has no locus standi to execute the suit agreement as an absolute owner; His two sisters had shares in the property; After verifying the title, the appellants 2 and 3 purchased the property and they are in possession of the suit property.

6. The respondent/plaintiff filed a reply statement denying the contents in the written statement. Subsequently the 1st appellant/defendant filed additional written statement denying the reply statement.

7. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the sale agreement entered between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 16.4.2007 is true?

2. Whether the first defendant received Rs. 12,51,100/- as advance in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 16.4.2007 from the plaintiff?

3. Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers of the suit property without notice?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?

5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

8. The plaintiff examined PW. 1 to PW. 5 and marked Exs. A1 to A12 along with Exs. X1 to X4. On the side of the appellants/defen