The main legal point established in the judgment is that the agreement dated 04.04.1996 was valid and enforceable, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract. The court also found that the defendants 2 and 3 were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice, and the subsequent sale deed executed in their favor was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2003 made in O.S.No.244 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur.)

Challenging the decree and judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, in O.S.No.244 of 1997, dated 15.10.2003, decreeing the suit for specific performance, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:-

3.1. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. They have owned the property adjacently. The first defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs. The agreement was finalized in the presence of Mediators one N.P.Sahulammed and M.S.Abdulkhadar. Accordingly, the agreement dated 04.04.1996 was reduced in writing. On the date of said agreement, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid as advance amount. On the date of the sale agreement, the title of the suit schedule property was not with the first defendant, but with the possession of Spices Board of Cochin. Therefore, it was agreed between the parties that the first defendant ought to have obtained reconveyance of the title from the Spices Board and thereafter, a registered sale deed shall be executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff from the date of sale agreement, has paid the amount to the tune of Rs.6,83,985/- on various dates till 13.03.1997 to the first defendant and Spices Board, at the instructions of the first defendant.

3.2. The property originally was brought for public auction. The Spices Board has purchased the property and they have also agreed to reconvey the schedule mentioned property on payment to the first defendant. Hence, it is the contention of the plaintiff that to clear the amount to the Spices Board and for reconveyance, the first defendant has requested the plaintiff to tender payment on his behalf to the Spices Board. Accordingly, the plaintiff has remitted the amount to the Spices Board on several dates by way of demand draft drawn in Bank of Baroda, Rajapalayam Branch in favour of the Secretary of the Spices Board. The plaintiff, has in fact, paid a sum of Rs.6,83,985/-.

3.3. On 03.01.1997, the Spices Board has written a letter to the first defendant requesting to pay the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh for reconveyance of the schedule mentioned property. At the request of the first defendant, the plaintiff has remitted the said amount on behalf of the first defendant vide Bank of Baroda, Rajapalayam Branch, by way of demand draft, dated 22.01.1997. The first defendant has also handed over the physical possession of the said property to the plaintiff on 22.10.1996. The plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property on and from 22.01.1996. As the Spices Board agreed to reconvey the property after clearing the amount, the plaintiff has approached the first defendant through his relatives and Panchayadars on and from 01.05.1997, on several occasions, informing about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and also requested the first defendant to complete the sale on getting reconveyance from the Spices Board. However, the first defendant has replied stating that he was unwell and not in a position to attend the Jamath meeting.

3.4. On 14.06.1997, one of the Mediators viz., Abdul Khadar, Tenkasi has sent a letter to Rajapalayam Jamath President. In the said letter, he has categorically admitted the execution of sale agreement dated 04.04.1996 and advance amount of Rs.2,000/- paid on the day and subsequently received a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the plaintiff and paid the same to the first defendant. On 12.05.1997 and 16.06.1997, the Jamath Committee has also passed a resolution, directing the plaintiff to take appropriate legal action through the compe