5. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the
suit property belonged to the first defendant and the first
defendant agreed to convey the suit property to the plaintiff
for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the plaintiff having agreed to
purchase the same for the abovesaid consideration, the parties
entered into the written agreement of sale on 28.03.1998 and a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given by the plaintiff to the first
defendant on the date of the sale agreement and it was agreed
that a balance sum of Rs.50,000/- should be paid by the
plaintiff within three months from the date of sale agreement
and the time fixed for the completion of the sale agreement is
five months from the date of the sale agreement with usual
default clauses and the plaintiff has been always ready and
willing to pay the balance sale consideration and to obtain the
sale deed. The plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- on 04.06.1998 and in
evidence of the same, the first defendant has acknowledged the
receipt of the said amount on the reverse side of the sale
agreement and thereafter, the plaintiff had been requesting the
first defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to
execute the sale deed, however the first defendant had been
evading to execute the sale deed on some pretext or the other
by giving false promises and also endeavored to alienate the
suit property to third parties and hence the plaintiff gave a
publication in the newspaper by giving details of the sale
agreement dated 28.03.1998 and warning to the intended
purchasers of the suit property. Subsequent there to, the
second defendant has caused a publication in the newspaper
stating that he had purchased the suit property on 16.06.1998
from the first defendant for a valid consideration and the
abovesaid case of the second defendant is not true and false and
the second defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant
and he is fully aware of the sale agreement dated 28.03.1998 and
the defendants 1 and 2 have colluded and brought about the sale
deed dated 16.06.1998 with ulterior motive to cheat the
plaintiff and deprive the rights of the plaintiff and the sale
deed dated 16.06.1998 is not true, valid and binding on the
plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff issued the legal notice dated
12.08.1998 to the defendants to come forward and execute the
sale deed and to the same, only the second defendant sent a
reply containing false allegations and hence according to the
plaintiff, he has been necessitated to institute the suit
against the defendants for appropriate reliefs. Pending suit,
the first defendant had died and his LRs had been brought on
