The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a sale agreement is influenced by the title of the seller, the rights of minors in the property, and the status of bonafide purchasers.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1998, in A.S.No.67 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1995 in O.S.No.136 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.)

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree, dated 20.11.1998, in A.S.No.67 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1995 in O.S.No.136 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for specific performance. The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff’s brother viz., Rayar Naicker and he married the second defendant. Since the second defendant is impotent, he filed divorce petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in O.P.No.21 of 1974 before the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1974 and declared that the second defendant is not the wife of the said Rayar Naicker. Thereafter, he married the first defendant in accordance with law. The second defendant filed maintenance case in M.C.No.91 of 1980 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., against the said Rayar Naicker, and the same was dismissed.

3.2. While being so, on 23.03.1985, the first defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff, in which the first defendant agreed to sell the suit property for the total sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and received a sum of Rs.2,500/- as advance from the plaintiff. Again the second defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.356 of 1985 as against the plaintiff and the first defendant and it was dismissed as not pressed. The defendants 1 and 2 had executed the sale deed in favour of the third defendant on 28.10.1985 and the said sale deed is not binding upon the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff caused notice to the defendants on 10.11.1985. When the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the first defendant failed to execute the sale deed. Hence the suit.

4. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed written statement and stating that originally the suit property belonged to one Rayar Naicker and the defendants 1 & 2 and Rayar Naicker were lived together. Rayar Naicker had executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant on 21.07.1973 and thereafter, he also executed a Will in favour of the second defendant on 14.08.1983. The second defendant filed maintenance case in M.C.No.91 of 1980 with collusion of the said Rayar Naicker. The first defendant also denied the allegation that she entered into agreement for sale on 23.03.1985 and agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The first and second defendant has sold out the suit property to the third defendant by a registered sale deed dated 28.10.1985 and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The third defendant filed separate written statement stating that there is no animosity between the husband of the third defendant and the plaintiff and due to which, the third defendant had purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 & 2. The third defendant had purchased the suit property for the valid sale consideration of Rs.15,500/- as such the third defendant is a bonafide purchaser without notice to the said agreement. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. On the side of the plaintiff, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and were marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13. On the side of the defendants, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.4 and were marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4. On perusal of the documents on record and on considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the submission made by the learned couns