JUDGEMENT :

In this First Appeal the unsuccessful plaintiff seeks to challenge the Judgment and Decree passed by the Additional District Court (Fast Tract Court No. I), Coimbatore in O.S.No. 295 of 2005. The case of the plaintiff and the defendants are herein below set out so as to appreciate the challenge to the said Judgment and Decree and the parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court.

Plaintiff's Case:

2. The plaintiff had filed the above suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 04.11.2004. It is a case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant and the husband of the 3rd defendant were brothers and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of the 3rd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 to 5 along with the late C.P.Krishnaraj had approached the plaintiff with an offer to sell the suit property to him.

3. Pursuant to negotiation, an agreement of sale dated 04.11.2004 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, under which the total sale consideration for the property was fixed at a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as an advance. The time for executing the sale was fixed at 6 months. The plaintiff would submit that he has always ready and willing to go ahead with the sale. However, the defendants kept postponing the same under one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to learn that the said defendants along with late C.P.Krishnaraj were taking steps to encumber the property. This prompted the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 30.01.2005 calling upon them to execute a sale deed within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the notice.

4. Thereafter, the defendants had met the plaintiff and agreed to execute the sale deed on 14.02.2005. Though the plaintiff was waiting at the Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi with non Judicial stamp papers till 5.45, the defendants did not turn up at the Sub Registrars Office. The defendants in the meanwhile had also issued a reply notice dated 07.02.2005 denying the very sale agreement and setting up a plea that they had signed blank stamp papers and had only borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/. The defendants demanded a copy of the agreement of sale which was also forwarded to them under cover of the rejoinder dated 15.02.2005.

5. Concerned by the attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff had given a publication in one issue of “Malai Malar” informing the general public about the agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. It appears that the defendants had created a sale deed in favour of the 6th defendant and the plaintiff would submit that the said sale deed is not binding upon him as the same was done during the subsistence of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants.

6. The plaintiff also contended that the defendants had admitted that the plaintiff had taken possession of the suit properties. Therefore, he has come forward with the above suit.

7. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte and the defendants 3 and 5 had entered appearance through counsel. However, initially written statement had been filed only by the 6th defendant.

Written Statement of the 6th Defendant

8. The 6th defendant filed a written statement inter alia contending that the suit is nothing but the result of a collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. She denied the agreement of sale dated 04.11.2004 and would contend that the said agreement had been entered into only defeating the right of this defendant. It is her case that even as early as on 11.06.1993, the said C.P.Krishnaraj and his children the defendants 4 and 5 had conveyed an extent of 1005 Sq.ft. together with terraced and tiled building bearing No. 87/1 in favour of the 6th defendant. The property belonged to Bagyammal, the mother of Krishnaraj, who had executed a Will dated 13.11.1972, bequeathing a life interest on Krishnaraj and a vested remainder on