JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and contesting respondents.

2. Suit is one for specific performance of Ext.A5 agreement said to have been executed by deceased Chithrasenan, who was the father of contesting 5th defendant, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. In the suit, the 5th defendant preferred a counter claim for a declaration of her title and possession of the property and also for eviction of the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Brief facts relevant are as follows:

According to the plaint averments, Ext.A5 was executed on

12.12.1990 by deceased Chithrasenan, father of the 5th defendant, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the appellant for a price. Chithrasenan admittedly died on 18.5.2002. Till his death, the suit was not laid. Before his death, RSA No.594/2012 2 on 17.4.1996, as per Ext.B2 document, the property was settled in the name of the 5th defendant and thereby she lays a claim over the property that she is the absolute owner.

4. The courts below considered the merit of the suit and counter claim. The trial court found that Ext.A5 agreement is a concocted document. The attending suspicious circumstances were also considered. Though it was allegedl