- (1.) The Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower appellate Court. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement said to have been executed on 19-10-1973 for the sale of 4.16 acres in Survey No. 275 in Naiyapakkam Village for Rs. 1,040/-. From the said date, he has been in possession after payment of a sum of Rs. 100/- as advance. He has been paying kist also. Again on 17-1-1974 another agreement was entered into, as the sale could not be completed as per the earlier agreement. After the second agreement, the third defendant using his influence has obtained the sale deed for the very same property from the defendants 1 and 2, on 20-2-1974. The sale deed is invalid. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of sale. Defendants 1 and 2 supported the case of the plaintiff. The third defendant alone contested the suit. According to him, the agreements dated 19-10-1973 and 17-1-1974 are not valid agreements. They are not true documents at all. The sale in his favour is genuine. From the date of sale, he is in possession of the suit property.
(2.) The trial Court has granted the decree as prayed for. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant was dead. Hence the second defendant was recorded as the legal representative. Similarly, D-3 also died and defendants 4 to 10 were added as his legal representatives. The appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of the third defendant. On a consideration of all the facts, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence the Second Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding Exs. A.1 and A.2 are not valid documents when the defendants 1 and 2 have not denied the agreements by going into the box. Therefore the agreements must be presumed to be genuine one and the third defendant cannot question the same.;