When a defendant alleges coercion regarding the execution of a document, the burden is on them to lead evidence. A failure to enter the witness box to cross-examination results in an adverse presumption, and purchasers must affirmatively plead and prove they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

.JUDGMENT

(1)The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.156 of 2004, dated 31.03.2010, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabhapuram, made in O.S.No.82 of 2001, dated 08.06.2004.

(2)The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

(3)The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit property is the land in S.No.447/6, measuring around 10 cents in Keezhkulam Village, Vilavangode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District.

Facts in Brief:-

(4)The facts of the case are that the plaintiff entered into an Agreement of Sale with the 1^st defendant under Ex.A1 on 04.08.2000 for sale of the suit property in S.No.447/6, Keezhkulam Village, Vilavankode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District, measuring 10 cents, for a sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. The plaintiff claims to have been put into possession pursuant to the Sale Agreement, since he had paid the entire sale consideration. However, as there was a mortgage in favour of the 2^nd defendant by the 1^st defendant, the Sale Deed was agreed to be executed within a year. Since the 1^st defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed, in terms of the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance.

(5)The 1^st defendant filed a separate written statement and the defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement.

(6)The 1^st defendant, is the owner of the property and defendants 2 and 3 are the subsequent purchasers. All the three defendants in one voice stated that the suit Sale Agreement was a fabricated document and that, no consideration passed under the same. They also contended that possession was not given to the plaintiff as pleaded by him. The defendants further contended that the 1^st defendant executed a Mortgage Deed, in respect of 27 cents, in S.Nos.447, 447/6 in favour of the 2^nd defendant and pursuant thereto, handed over possession of the entire extent of 27 cents to the 2^nd defendant. Thereafter, the property was sold by the 1^st defendant to the defendants 2 and 3, under two Sale Deeds dated 23.04.2001. After recovering possession of the suit property from the 2^nd defendant, the 1^st defendant put the 3^rd defendant in possession of the property in S.No.447/5. The defendants contended that the sale in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 was bona fide and for valuable consideration. The defendants also contended that the original title documents were also handed over to them by the 1^st defendant. The defendants therefore submitted that there were no merits in the suit and hence, the same deserved to be dismissed.

(7)The Trial Court, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, found that the Suit Sale Agreement was a forged document and that the defendants 2 and 3 were bona fide purchasers for value. The Trial Court further found that the legal notice sent by the plaintiff, was received by the 1^st defendant only on 24.04.2001, and prior to that, on 23.04.2001 itself, the 1^st defendant had executed the Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. The Trial Court found that the legal notice was issued fraudulently and only after the sale in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by the 1^st defendant. The Trial Court also found that the 1^st defendant