JUDGMENT

It is so strange enough that the First Appellate Court remanded a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale for the purpose of impleading the pendente lite transferee without knowing the scope and ambit of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the legal impact thereof.

2. It is a suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 contract for sale between the plaintiff and the sole defendant, by which, the parties had agreed to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs.70,000/- and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by way of advance. It is pertaining to 14 cents of property. The agreement is dated 08.02.2012 and the period agreed upon was up to 15.03.2012. It is thereafter on 21.03.2012, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance. The due execution of the agreement in question and the signature found affixed as that of the defendant was disputed and denied by the defendant.

3. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement, the plaintiff gave oral evidence directly as PW1 and examined two witnesses to the document PW2 and PW3, who are the daughter and son-in-law of the defendant. Nothing was pleaded in the written