JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 made in A.S.No.44 of 2006 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2005 made in O.S.No.12 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff herein had instituted the above referred suit in O.S.No.12 of 2004, on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the registered Sale Deed dated 10.03.1997 registered in Document Nos.381 & 382 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Uthiramerur, executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in favour of the 3rd defendant, as null and void; for a direction, directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to perform the contract of sale by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sum of Rs.64,000/-; to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and for costs.

3. After elaborate trial, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, by judgment and decree dated 02.08.2005, dismissed the suit with costs.

4. In the appeal in A.S. No.44 of 2006, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, after elaborate enquiry, by judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010, allowed the appeal with costs. Being dissatisfied with the same, the 3rd defendant in the suit is before this Court with the present Second Appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

6. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i) On 10.03.1993, one Thangavelu Gouner and the 1st defendant entered into a sale agreement, wherein, they agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.67,000/- to the plaintiff and received Rs.3,000/- as advance. Time fixed was six months for completing the performance of contract. After entering into the said contract, the plaintiff received a notice from one Ramu Ammal, wherein she has stated as she is the wife of Thangavelu Gounder and she has filed a suit against her husband and the 1st defendant in O.S.No.668 of 1990, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Kanchipuram, claiming that she is the original owner of the suit schedule property.

(ii) After knowing the fact that a suit is pending in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to Thangavelu Gounder and the 1st defendant. Immediately after the receipt of the said notice, both Thangavelu Gounder and the 1st defendant pacified the plaintiff that they would compromise the said Ramu Ammal and make her to withdraw the suit.

(iii) On 02.12.1994, the said Thangavelu Gounder and the 1st defendant issued a legal notice to the plaintiff wherein, after suppressing the pendency of O.S.No.668 of 1990, called upon the plaintiff to complete the sale on or before 15.12.1994. After receipt of the said notice, on 14.12.1994, the plaintiff issued a suitable reply. On coming to know that both the proposed vendors attempted to sell the suit schedule property to third parties, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.320 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Kanchipuram, seeking permanent injunction restraining the Thangavelu Gounder and the 1st defendant from alienating the suit schedule property to anyone.

(iv) In the meanwhile, on 21.09.1995, the said Thangavelu Gounder had passed away. The said Ramu Ammal also died in the year 1998 and that the suit in O.S.No.668 of 1990 was dismissed for default on 11.06.1999. Later on 10.08.1999, the plaintiff approached the 1st and 2nd defendants for completing the contract, for which they informed the plaintiff that they sold the suit scheduled property to the 3rd defendant on 10.03.1997 itself. Hence, the suit.

7. Before the trial Court, the 1st and 2nd defendants remained exparte. On the other hand, the 3rd defendant has filed a writt