Srinivasan, J. - (1.) The second appeal is at the instance of defendants 3 and 4 in a suit for specific performance and injunction filed by the first respondent herein.
(2.) The case of the first respondent (plaintiff) is that the suit property was sold originally by the father of defendants 1 and 2 to his father in 1933 for a sum of Rs. 500/ - and since then, it has been in the possession of his father and later himself. According to him, as defendants 1 and 2 were trying to disturb his possession he entered into an agreement in 1961 with the first defendant for purchasing the property for a sum of Rs. 4,000/ - and peace prevailed for some time thereafter. Again, defendants 1 and 2 started giving troubles which led to another agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2 under Exhibit A1 dated 1.1.1974. At that time the consideration was fixed at Rs. 5,000/ - and a sum of Rs. 500/ - was paid in advance. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 3.11.1974 a sale deed was executed on stamp papers by defendants 1 and 2 after receiving the sum of Rs. 4,500/ - being the balance of consideration. The said document is marked as Exhibit A2. Thereafter, defendants 1 and 2 refused to register the document and the plaintiff approached the court for specific performance and injunction on the ground that he was throughout in possession.
(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the appellant herein (defendants 3 and 4) contested the suit. They claimed title to the property under sale deeds dated 12.11.1973 and 10.12.1973 executed by defendants 1 and 2. The documents are marked as Exhibit B1 and B2. According to defendants 3 and 4 the agreement set up by the plaintiff was not true and the case of oral sale in favour of the plaintiffs father in 1933 was false. Defendants 3 and 4 also disputed the validity of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff, They pleaded that they were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the agreement, if any, in favour of the plaintiff.;