JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014 in A.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2011 in O.S.No.656 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul.)

The defendants in a suit for specific performance are the appellants before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same status as in the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff's case:

(i) The plaintiff had come forward with the case that the suit property belongs to the second defendant by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 09.11.1957. The deceased first defendant is the son of the second defendant. Originally, the suit was filed only against the first and second defendants and thereafter, on the death of the first defendant, the legal representatives of the first defendant were brought on record as defendants 3 and 4.

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant had offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. On 06.12.2001, an agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant as the power agent of the second defendant. The agreement of sale was registered. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance and the balance of Rs.50,000/- was repayable within a period of one year from the date of execution of the agreement.

(ii) The plaintiff would contend that he had been ready and willing to purchase the property right from the inception and despite his personally approaching the first defendant to sell the property in his favour on 07.06.2002 and 07.07.2002, the first defendant evaded the execution. On 20.08.2002, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the first defendant to which a reply was received denying the plaintiff's claim and therefore, leaving the plaintiff with no other alternative, but to file the suit.

3. The defense put forward by the defendants:

(i) The second defendant had filed a written statement on 06.06.2005 inter alia contending that the plaintiff and the deceased first defendant were doing joint business in selling pinewood and it appears that, in this transaction, the first defendant owed money to the plaintiff. The first defendant was prone to drinking and taking advantage of his inebriated state, the plaintiff had got the first defendant's signature in the agreement stating that he was taking the same only as a security for the amounts due and payable by the first defendant in the business. On account of his excessive drinking and frequent illness, the first defendant was unable to take action immediately to set aside this agreement and later, the first defendant died. The contention of the second defendant was that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was not received by the first defendant and the agreement itself has been obtained only by coercion and force taking advantage of the weakness of the first defendant. It was only when the notice Ex.A2 was received, the second defendant came to know about the agreement. The second defendant had also sent a fitting reply dated 30.09.2002 to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. The second defendant therefore, sought to have the suit dismissed.

(ii) The fifth defendant has also filed a written statement reiterating the stand taken by the second defendant that the power deed had been manoeuvred by the deceased first defendant, who was leading wayward life and had spent most of his money. He had got the power executed from the second defendant in order to meet his necessities. The second defendant has executed a power of attorney in favour of the fifth defendant and the fifth defendant was contesting the case on behalf of the second defendant. The fifth defendant would further sub