JUDGMENT :

1. The defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.53 of 1993 before the Sub Court Kuzhithurai for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 02.01.1993. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.8 of 1999 before the Additional District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The learned First Appellate Judge partly decreed the suit to the extent of the share of the first defendant in the suit schedule property after depositing 50% of the sale consideration, but dismissed the suit with regard to the share of the second defendant. As against the same, the defendants 4 and 5 have filed the present second appeal.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule properties are owned by the defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. The plaintiff had further contended that on 02.01.1993, the first defendant and the third defendant after being authorised by the second defendant, executed an agreement for sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.65,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.1000/- was received by the defendants 1 and 2 on the date of the agreement. The period of agreement was fixed as three months to end of 31.03.1993. Though the plaintiff was ready with funds, the defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed, a legal notice was issued on 18.02.1993. On 01.03.1993, the first defendant sent a reply that he has already sold the property to third party. After verification, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 4 and 5 have purchased the suit schedule property from the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the present suit for specific performance.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of the advance amount on 02.01.1993. The first defendant further contended that he had entered into a sale agreement with the fourth defendant on 19.10.1992 for a sale consideration of Rs.70,000/- and subsequently, a sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 on 12.02.1993. According to the first defendant, defendants 4 and 5 are in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of sale deed.

5. The fourth defendant filed a written statement disputing the suit sale agreement. According to the fourth defendant, the suit schedule properties are owned by the defendants 1 and 2 and they have executed a sale agreement in his favour on 19.10.1992 and based upon the said sale agreement, a sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants 4 and 5 on 12.02.1993 and they have taken possession of the suit schedule properties. The fourth defendant further contended that the suit sale agreement is not a genuine one and it cannot be acted upon. The fourth defendant further contended that they are not aware of the said sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and they are the bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged suit sale agreement.

6. The trial court arrived at a finding that the suit sale agreement has been executed by the defendants 1 and 3. The trial Court confirmed the genuineness and validity of Exhibit A1 suit sale agreement, but the trial Court found that only the defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the suit sale agreement has been entered into by the first defendant and the third defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The third defendant though he is the husband of the second defendant, has no right to enter into the sale agreement. Since the sale agreement has been entered into by a person who has no title to the suit schedule property, the said sale agreement cannot be considered to be a legally enforceable agreement. The trial Court also found that the sale agreement alleged by the defendants under Exhibit B2 on 19.10.1992 is not a genuine one. But the trial Court p