JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 11.12.2107 made in O.S.No.99 of

2011.

2.The appellants are the defendants; the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific per- formance, declaration and permanent injunction; the suit property belonged to the first defendant and he agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- by way of cash on the date of the agreement itself and entered into an agreement for sale on 14.04.2010; the time for performance of the contract was one year; at the time when the advance money was received, the first defendant handed over the vacant possession of the suit property; the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract; he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property but the first defendant was evading to perform his part of contract, despite the plaintiff called upon him to get the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and execute the sale deed; plaintiff send legal notice on 14.02.2011 to the first defendant; the first defendant received the legal notice and sent a lawyer notice with false and frivolous allegations; in the meanwhile, the plaintiff came to know that the first de- fendant had created a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant on

27.08.2010 in respect of the suit property and the second defendant also sold the same in favour of the third defendant on 07.10.2010; hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance along with the relief of declaration to declare the settlement deed dated 27.08.2010 and sale deed dated 07.10.2010 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit prop-

erty.

3.The first and second defendants filed written statement by stating that the alleged sale agreement is not true; the first defendant did not get any sale advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff; even in the reply notice sent by first de- fendant, the above facts were stated and the first defendant alone was in possession of the suit property; the sale deed of the suit property was found missing and the first defendant was making enquires of that; only at that point of time, the first de- fendant got the legal notice from the plaintiff; the first defendant came to know that the plaintiff is his brother/T.K.Mohanraj's son-in-law; the first defendant's brother died in the year 2010; when he was alive, he was having many civil and criminal cases against him; in order to furnish security for the bail granted to him, the first defendant had given his property documents to him on various occasions; thereafter, the first defendant had omitted to get back the documents; the first de- fendant could recall later that the sale deed of the suit property was given to his brother and he was negligent in getting back the same; the said situation was taken advantage by the first defendant's brother's wife and she had instigated her son-in- law to settle her scores with the first defendant by way of filing various litigations against him;

4.The third defendant filed the written statement by stating that she was unaware of the sale agreement dated 14.04.2010 and she is a bonafide purchaser and hence, the suit should be dismissed.

5.Basing of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following is-

sues:-

“ 1.Whether the title deed which were left with 1st defendant brother for obtaining bail is used by the plaintiff with the help of

1st defendant brother wife T.M.Chithra?

2.Whether the 3rd defendant is a bonafide purchaser?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific perfor-

mance?

4.Whether the registered settlement deed dated 27.08.2010 and registered sale deed dated 07.10.2010 is null and void?

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?”

6.During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witn