MOHIDDIN SAHIB Vs. A AMENA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff, who filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-7-1989 and lost his case in the first appellate Court as well, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendants 1 to 3 before the trial court who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, entered into a sale agreement dated 1-7-1989 with him for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 3,240/- and the said consideration was also received by them, agreeing to execute the Sale Deed within a period of one year. On knowing that the defendants 1 to 3 tried to alienate the suit property, the plaintiff issued an advertisement on 7-8-1989 in 'maalai Murasu' daily. Subsequently, having known that the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the suit property to the fourth defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 1-7-1989.

(3.) IN their written statement, the defendants 1 to 3, first of all denied the agree-ment dated 1-7-1989. It was their case that the suit property did not belong to them on 1-7-1989 and it belonged to one Abdul razak, the husband of the first defendant. According to them, they had approached the plaintiff for a loan for which he insisted upon them to give the suit property as security and it was only for that purpose, they executed a document even without knowing about the recitals in the document. It was their further case that only after receipt of notice in the suit, they came to know that the document which they executed was a sale deed and they had no knowledge of the paper advertisement when they sold the property to the fourth defendant for a valuable consideration.