JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved over the findings of the First Appellate Court reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit filed for specific performance, the present appeals have been filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:-

(i) In O.S. No. 453 of 2006, it is the case of the plaintiff that larger extent of the land measuring to an extent of 7.83 cents in S.F. No. 360, Gundur Village, Trichy District shown as 'A' Schedule property belongs to one Venkatachalam Chettiar. After his demise his wife executed a settlement deed in favour of one Mariayayee Ammal. The said Mariayayee Ammal executed a registered sale deed bequeathing the 'A' schedule property to the first defendant, her grandson. The first defendant has executed a gift deed in favour of his sisters namely, the first defendant in O.S. No. 454 of 2006 and the first defendant in O.S. No. 458 of 2006 for an extant of 4.50 acres and the remaining area namely, 3.33 cents were retained by the first defendant, which is shown as 'B' schedule property. On 13.03.2006, the second defendant agreed to sell the 'B' Schedule property for an extent of 3.33 cents to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 3,66,300/-, i.e., Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre and the plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as an advance towards the sale consideration and executed the sale receipts.

(ii) Similarly, the first defendant in O.S. No. 454 of 2006 has also agreed to sell the property of 2.00 acres of land for a total consideration of Rs. 2.20 lakhs and executed sale receipt after receiving a sum of Rs. 1 lakhs as an advance on 20.03.2006.

(iii) Similarly, the first defendant in O.S. No. 458 of 2006 has also executed a sale receipt for selling the property to an extent of 2.50 acres for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2.75 lakhs and received a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as advance on 13.03.2006.

(iv) The first defendants in O.S. Nos. 454 and 458 of 2006 are none other than the sisters of the first defendant in O.S. No. 453 of 2006. After receipt of advance amount and executing the sale receipts, the first defendant in O.S. No. 458 of 2006 has received further advance of Rs. 1 lakh on 25.06.2006 and made necessary endorsement on 25.06.2006. At the time of receiving advance of Rs. 1 lakh, the second defendant in O.S. No. 453 of 2006 had also given title deeds and patta passbook to the plaintiff.

(v) The plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the properties under the said sale receipts. However, the defendants, after receiving the part consideration, are evading to perform the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 22.11.2006. On receipt of such notice, the contesting defendants in all the three suits replied to the said notice stating that they have sold the properties in favour of a third party. Hence, it is the contention that on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that on 20.11.2006, the first defendant in O.S. No. 453 of 2006 has manipulated a false document in the name of the third defendant in O.S. No. 453 of 2006 and the second defendant in O.S. No. 454 and 458 of the 2006. Hence, it is the contention that the third defendant in O.S. No. 453 of 2006 and the second defendant in O.S. No. 454 and 458 of 2006 is not a bona fide purchaser and the documents are not supported by any consideration. Hence, it is the contention that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the property. Hence, the suit filed for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the agreement and for permanent injunction claiming that they are the owners of the third schedule property and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The subsequent purchaser, namely the third defen