Impugning the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2004, passed in A.S.No.31 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.1999, passed in O.S. No.290 of 1996, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur, the abovesaid second appeals had been preferred respectively by the second defendant and the first defendant.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for specific performance.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the first defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule properties and he had offered to sell the same to the plaintiff and the plaintiff accepted the said offer and accordingly, the parties had reduced their agreement in writing by way of a written agreement dated 16.11.91 and as per the same, both parties agreed that the price of the suit property should be fixed at Rs.26,950/- and pursuant thereof, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the first defendant as advance on the date of the sale agreement and the parties had agreed that the first defendant should execute a registered sale deed within one month i.e.,16.12.91 after the plaintiff had paid the balance purchase amount i.e., 11,950/- to the first defendant and the agreement also contained the usual deterrent clauses and as per the agreement, the first defendant had surrendered the suit property to the plaintiff and after the execution of the agreement, the plaintiff had gathered information that the second defendant and her relatives had designed to knock off the suit property by hook or crook and with that illegal design, the first defendant has issued a notice to the plaintiff on 19.11.91 and the contents of the said notice are all false, frivolous and vexatious and the allegations made by the first defendant in the said notice that the sale agreement abovestated is a concocted one and the first defendant had been coerced to execute the same under threat in the presence of the police officials etc., are all false and the further allegations that the first defendant had orally agreed to sell the suit property to the second defendant for a price at Rs.1225/- per cent and had received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the second defendant as advance are false and the further allegations that one Ponnusamy prevailed over the first defendant to execute the agreement against his wish and resultantly, at his behest, the first defendant had been taken to the police station with the help of the constables and the first defendant was threatened to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and thereby, the first defendant had been forced to sign two blank stamp papers and the stamp papers were taken by an Ex. M.L.A and the first defendant apprehending that some agreement would be written up on the basis of the abovesaid signed stamp papers are all false and on the other hand, the first defendant had executed the sale agreement dated 16.11.91, as above narrated after receiving the advance amount from the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses. The notice date 19.11.91 sent by the first defendant had been designed in such a manner in order to avoid the sale agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. There has been no oral agreement between the defendants 1 and 2 as put forth in the abovesaid notice and if the same had been true, the plaintiff would not have ventured to purchase the suit property from the first defendant and the oral agreement has been fabricated for the purpose of the case and inasmuch as the first defendant appears to be not a willing person to execute the sale deed as per the written agreement, according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as he has been ready and willing to pay the balance purchase amount and get the sale deed and as the second defendant is also found to be a necessary party for the lis, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case