JUDGMENT :

The defendants 1 to 6 are the appellants before this Court. The only ground on which the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.87 of 2005 of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai has been challenged is that the learned Judge has, without a prayer for refund being asked, ordered refund of the advance amount and compensation in a suit for specific performance.

2. For proper appreciation of the case on hand, it is necessary to briefly allude to the facts. The 1st respondent had filed a suit O.S.No.4279 of 1997 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai originally for the relief of specific performance and to set aside the decree in O.S.No.3802 of 1992 dated 20.07.1994. Thereafter, the suit has been amended to include the following reliefs:

(a) To declare that the release deed dated 24.06.1998 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the 7th defendant is not binding on the plaintiff.

(b) To declare the Judgement in O.S.No.7729 of 1992 dated 12.11.1998 and the consequent sale deed dated 16.11.1998 executed by defendants 3 to 6 as not binding on the plaintiff.

3. The case of the 1st respondent herein was that the suit property belonged to one Ambujammal who had purchased it under a sale deed dated 17.08.1938. Ambujammal had two daughters Manoranjithammal and Ramathilagammal and on her deminse the suit property devolved on her two daughters and the daughters were in joint possession of the same.

4. Manoranjithammal had two children Kanagavalli Ammal alias Saroja Ammal and Venkataramanujam Pillai. Ramathilagammal had four children, who were arrayed as defendants 3 to 6 and who are appellants 3 to 6 herein. The 1st respondent's case is that Manoranjithammal and Ramathilagammal had died intestate leaving behind their legal heirs who were in joint possession of the suit property for over a decade. Kanagavalli Ammal alias Saroja Ammal died leaving behind daughters Nagalakshmi and Vijayalakshmi who are appellants 1 and 2 herein. Like wise Venkataramanujam Pillai died leaving his son Illa Murugan who is the 7th defendant in the suit and the 2nd respondent herein.

5. The properties were not divided and while so the 1st respondent had approached the 2nd respondent to execute a sale deed in her favour. He had informed the other co-sharers for getting their consent. The 1st respondent once again requested the 2nd respondent to sell his share for which he had demanded the entire sale consideration which the 1st respondent was not ready to do. Thereafter, the 1st respondent approached appellants 1 to 6 asking them to sell their 1/4th share. Thereafter, the agreement of sale dated 08.06.1992 was entered into between the 1st respondent and the appellants herein. The agreement of sale was duly registered and except for the 2nd respondent, the appellants who were the defendants 1 to 6 in the suit had signed the said agreement. Under the deed of agreement, the sale had to be completed within 11 months after clearing the dispute with the 2nd respondent herein.

6. On 14.07.1992, the 1st respondent had issued a legal notice to the 2nd respondent calling upon him to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a sale consideration in respect of a 1/4th undivided share. There was no response to the same as well as the 1st respondent had filed O.S.No.3802 of 1992 on the file of the XI City Civil Court, Chennai. Interim injunction was originally granted which was later vacated.

7. The 1st respondent would submit that by way of abundant caution she had made another agreement during the pendency of O.S.No.3802 of 1992. This agreement was executed on 03.05.1993. This agreement was also duly registered and signed by the appellants herein. There was no time limit fixed for the conclusion of the sale. Meanwhile, the appellants 1 and 2 colluded with the 2nd respondent and executed an agreement with him. O.S.No.3802 of 1992 was decreed in favour of the 2nd respondent and on the basis of this decree the appellants 1 and 2 had relinquished their share in fav