J U D G M E N T

The defendants 2 and 3 in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.12.2006 are the appellants in the present Second Appeal.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

The case of the plaintiff is that on 19.12.2006, he entered into an unregistered sale agreement with the defendants 1 to 3. The sale consideration mutually fixed was Rs.4,00,000/- and on the date of the execution of the sale agreement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance. According to the plaintiff, the sale agreement permitted the plaintiff to take possession of the property, fence the same and also form a layout for marketing the plots. The parties have agreed for 90 days period for concluding the sale transaction. According to the plaintiff, he was also ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour. However, the first defendant was evading the plaintiff by citing some reason or the other and in the mean time, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant was carrying out some development activity in the property and on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had dropped the very proposal viz., the sale of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attempts to contact the first defendant were unsuccessful and therefore he lodged a police complaint in C.S.R.No.51 of 2007. The plaintiff also issued a lawyer's notice on 10.04.2007, to which the first defendant sent a reply on 19.04.2007 informing the plaintiff that he had already sold the suit property to defendants 2 and 3. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 was a sham and nominal document and also reflecting a lesser sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- than what was agreed under the agreement of sale with the plaintiff viz., Rs.4,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 2 and 3 were not bonafide purchasers for value. The plaintiff therefore instituted the suit seeking specific performance.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement admitting the execution of the agreement of sale for Rs.4,00,000/-. However, the first defendant denied the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property in part performance and that he was allowed to plot out the same. Though the first defendant would contend that the sale agreement did contain a covenant that the plaintiff was permitted to enter the property for the purpose of forming the road, laying fence etc., the said covenant was not given effect to. According to the first defendant, though 90 days time was fixed, the plaintiff was never ready and willing to complete the transaction as promised. The first defendant also admitted to have sold the suit property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and denied the allegations that the said sale deed was a sham and nominal document.

4. The defendants 2 and 3, who were purchasers of the suit property filed an additional written statement after adopting the written statement of the first defendant. In the said additional written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3, they have stated that their purchase was bonafide and in pursuance of the sale deed in their favour, they have been put in possession of the suit property. They have also taken steps by giving a police complaint and also causing publications in English and Tamil Dailies on 26.10.2006 regarding loss of the original title documents, before embarking on the purchase.

5. The plaintiff filed a reply statement to the additional written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3 reiterating that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 was clearly manipulative in nature and also sham and nominal. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were colluding amongst themselves. The plaintiff also has stated that, having adopted the written statement of the first defendant, the def