JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff in suit O.S No. 306 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni, Thiruvannamalai, against the defendants for the relief of specific performance directing them to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 02.07.2007 with regard to the suit property. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and both of them contested the suit stated that the suit property is the self acquired property of the plaintiff's father which is not yet divided, and apart from the plaintiff first defendant, one Chinnapayan and Ponniammal are legal heirs of their father. Further, they also stated that they were not entered into agreement with the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. Before the Trial Court both the parties adduced their respective evidence and to prove the sale agreement the plaintiff examined one of the attestor of the sale agreement. On considering submissions on both sides the Trial Court held that sale agreement is valid one thereby directed the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Aggrieved and dissatified over the same the defendants preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Arni in A.S No. 30 of 2011, the lower appellate Court independently analysed the facts and evidence held that suit property is joint family property in which the plaintiff's brother and sister have equal share, and the sale agreement Ex.A1 also not been proved by the plaintiff as per manner known to law thereby concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance accordingly findings rendered by the Trial Court was set aside and dismissed the suit.

3. Challenging the said findings the plaintiff preferred this second appeal stated that there was no particulars about the ownership of the property without such particulars the Court below erroneously held that suit property is aj oint family property which is absolute unsustainable and unwarranted and also contended that the defendant not proved the Ex.A1 sale agreement was fraudulently created by the plaintiff through material evidence in spite of that suit was dismissed which is unfair and liable to be set aside. Hence he prayed to allow the second appeal. This Court admitted the second appeal with the following substantial questions of law:

i. Whether the lower appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgement of the Trial Court while granting a decree for specific performance by holding that the pliantiff/appellant herein had satisfied the requirements as contemplated under the specific relief Act?

ii. Whether the lower appellate Court correct in holding that the property in question was an undivided one in the absence of a valid document or decree in the alleged suit for partition?

Iii. Whether the lower Court erred on considering the granting of specific performance to the extent of any right over the property in question in the event of adjudication in the alleged partition suit under Section 12 (3) of the Specific Relief Act?

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and sale consideration was fixed as Rs. 25,000/- and the sale agreement/ Ex.A1 was executed on 02.07.2007 a sum of Rs. 1001 was paid by the plaintiff as advance and three months time was fixed for completion of the sale agreement and the defendant also agreed to execute a sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. On the side of the plaintiff he produced Ex.A1/sale agreement. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff who contested the suit stated that the suit property is not exclusively belongs to the plaintiff nor his wife/ second defendant. Further, the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the suit property since because it is self acquired property of his father after his father's demise his four legal hei