JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.54 of 2004, dated 31.3.2007, on the file of District Judge, Karur.

The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.54 of 2004, dated 31.3.2007, on the file of District Judge, Karur.

2. The appellants 1 to 3 are the defendants and the deceased first respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 2004, on the file of District Judge, Karur. The respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants/defendants. After trial, the trial Court found that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of specific performance and decreed the suit. Challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present appeal suit has been filed.

3. The brief facts of the plaint reads as follows:

The appellants 1 to 3 herein are the defendants. The first defendant is the father of the second and third defendants. As per the partition deed, dated 3.9.1987, the suit properties belongs to the defendants. The defendants in the suit agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.7 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as advance. The time for execution of sale deed is fixed as two years and a sale agreement was entered into between them on the same date. On the date of sale agreement itself, the original documents such as partition deed, original patta and Encumbrance Certificate were handed over to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs, the defendants had delayed the same one way or other. On 13.11.2005, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice to the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to register the sale deed in respect of the suit property. Though the notice was received by the defendants, they did not come forward to execute the same. Thereafter the defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply notice with false averments. It is not true to say that the sale agreement was executed as defendants have failed to pay the mortgaged amount for the plaintiffs' brother Selvaraj and plaintiff's wife Nallammal. It is not true to say that no advance amount was received as per the sale agreement and it was executed on compulsion. It is not true to say that the market value of the suit property is more than that of Rs.18 lakhs. It is not correct to say that the sale agreement was never executed. The plaintiff has sent a rejoinder to the reply notice of the defendants. There is no connection between the mortgage deed and the sale agreement. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for the relief of specific performance.

4. The brief facts of the written statement filed by the first defendant, which was adopted by the second defendant, reads as under: The averments contained in the plaint are not true. It is not true to say that the defendants have agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and has executed a sale agreement to sell the suit property for Rs.7 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as advance amount from the plaintiff. The sale agreement was executed by the defendants on compulsion made by the plaintiff. It is not true to say that the defendants have handed over the original documents of sale to the plaintiff on the date of sale agreement. It is not true to say that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract in respect of the sale of suit property. The defendants have sent a reply notice with true facts to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff. On 30.1.2000, the defendants have mortgaged the suit property to the plaintiff's brother Selvaraj for Rs.1.5 lakhs and the said amount was paid only by the plaintiff. The interest towards the same was paid by the defendants. Whileso, as the plaintiff has threatened the defendants to repay the mortgaged amount or otherwise they will take legal action a