JUDGMENT :

R. Pongiappan, J.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No. 50 of 2007, dated 24.07.2008, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.07.2006, made in O.S. No. 127 of 2002, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi.

2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit against the defendants/appellants in O.S. No. 127 of 2002, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, for the relief of specific performance. By the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.07.2006, the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, had dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the findings arrived at by the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, the plaintiff/respondent filed an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai in A.S. No. 50 of 2007.

3. After elaborate enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 24.07.2008 allowed the appeal and directed the defendants/appellants to execute a sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants/appellants preferred the present Second Appeal for the relief to set aside the Judgment and Decree rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described, before the trial Court.

5. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The suit schedule property is the property of one Mahalingam, who is the husband of the 1st defendant and father of the defendants 2 to 6. On 28.09.1987, the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the said Mahalingam, for the purchase of suit schedule property. The sale price was fixed as Rs. 2,600/- and the same was paid to the said Mahalingam on the day, when the sale agreement was executed. In the sale agreement, time for performing the contract was fixed as 15 years. On the date of sale agreement itself, the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. During the time of hand over the possession, the said Mahalingam handed over the sale deeds, dated 23.06.1976 and 18.06.1968, which stand in the name of the predecessor of the said Mahalingam. Further, he handed over the copy of the patta pertaining to the suit property.

(ii) After entering into the agreement, the said Mahalingam passed away. From the date on which the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property, he removed the boundary, which was situated in between the land belongs to him and to the property of the said Mahalingam and enjoyed the same. The first defendant is having the knowledge about the execution of the sale agreement. After the demise of the said Mahalingam, the plaintiff demanded the defendants for execution of the sale deed and the same was evaded by the defendants. The defendants are bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On 01.10.2002, the plaintiff sent an advocate notice demanding the defendants to perform the contract, as agreed by the deceased Mahalingam. The said notice was suitably replied by the defendants by way of sending advocate notice, dated 08.10.2002. Even after receiving the advocate notice, the defendants refused to execute the sale deed. Hence the suit.

6. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the defendant Nos. 2 to 6, in brief, are as follows:

The alleged execution of the sale agreement, dated 28.09.1987, is nothing but a rank forgery. It is not necessary for the deceased Mahalingam to fix 15 years, as time limit for performing the contract. Even after request by the defendants in respect to furnish a copy of the sale agreement, the same was not complied by the plaintiff. The signature found in the sale agreement not belongs to the deceased Mahalingam. The sale agreement has been prepared after the demise of the said Mahalingam. There was a material alteration found in the sale agreement. The plaintiff never in possession of