JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgement and Decree passed by the Additional District Sessions Court (Fast Track), Arni, in A.S.No.29 of 2019 dated 12.09.2022, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Sub-Court, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District, in O.S.No.47 of 2009 dated 27.04.2018.

2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff, filed the Suit seeking the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff and the Appeal Suit preferred by defendants 4 to 7 & 9 was dismissed. Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, defendants 5 to 7 and 9 have preferred the present the present Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

4. The crux of the plaint averments is as follows:-

4.1. The suit schedule property originally belonged to the first defendant/Munusamy (died). The plaintiff and the first defendant, after mutual discussion and consent, entered into an agreement of sale on 09.03.2009, wherein the first defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a valid consideration of Rs.1,44,300/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.16,000/- on the date of agreement in the presence of one Kathavarayan, who is the Son-in-law of the first defendant and one of the attesting witness to the sale agreement. The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,28,300/- within three months from the date of agreement and in turn, the first defendant had to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

4.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and demanded the first defendant to execute the sale deed, whereas, the first defendant, under some pretext or other, was evading the same, despite the plaintiff had approached him several times. Thereby, the plaintiff, suspecting that the first defendant was acting with an ulterior motive and planning to violate the sale agreement, had sent a legal notice to the first respondent on 19.03.2009 calling upon the first defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to complete the sale transaction and the same was received and acknowledged by the first defendant on 20.03.2009, whereas, he neither complied with the demand nor sent any reply. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the Suit for specific performance of the sale agreement and injunction and since the plaintiff suspects that the first defendant was taking steps to alienate the suit property to some third parties with a view to defraud the plaintiff, the plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction.

4.3. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died on 17.06.2009 and thereby, the plaintiff had impleaded his legal heirs the wife and daughters as defendants 3 to 9 in the suit. A direction to defendants 3 to 9 to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was prayed in the Suit.

5. The Second defendant/Sub-Registrar had filed the written statement contending that he is a Government Servant and he has no knowledge about the relationship of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and further, no notice under Section 80(2) CPC was given to him and whatever, the document presented to him, he would register it.

6. The 4th defendant has filed the written statement and it was also adopted by defendants 3 and 5 to 9. The crux of the averments in the written statement is as under :-

6.1. The husband of the 3rd defendant/father of defendants 4 to

9 had not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff and there is no need at all for him to enter into any such agreement. Further, defendants 4 to 9 are working as teachers and since their father was not having a proper eye sight, in order to provide a secured income for their father, they had pooled in money and purchased the property in the name of their father in the yea