JUDGMENT:- In view of the order passed by this Court on 15th January, 2007, this First Appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent for specific performance of contract and by amending the plaint, the plaintiff also sought the possession of the suit property.

3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that in view of an agreement of sale dated 30-07-2002, the defendant agreed to sell 2.66 Hectares of land to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.2,99,250/- at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.50,000/ - to the defendant as earnest money. The parties agreed to execute the sale-deed on or before 30-10-2002 after receiving the balance amount of Rs.2,49,250/- at the time of execution of the sale-deed. It is then pleaded by the plaintiff that it was agreed between the parties that the necessary document, i.e. 7/12 extract and other documents, required for the parties to execute the sale-deed, would be supplied by the defendant within the stipulated period. It is then pleaded that in the 3rd week of August, 2002, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested the defendant to supply the 7/12 extract and necessary documents. But, the defendant avoided to do so on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff thereafter informed the defendant that he was ready to pay the balance consideration and get the sale-deed executed and requested the defendant to attend the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagpur but, the defendant told the plaintiff that the 7/12 extracts and other documents were yet to be received and would be supplied to the plaintiff as soon as they were received. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff thereafter approached the defendant from time to time requesting that the sale-deed be executed but, the defendant persistently told the plaintiff that the necessary documents were yet to be received. Since the plaintiff apprehended that the defendant was desirous of selling the suit field to a third party, the plaintiff issued a communication/notice to the defendant on 11-09-2002 requesting the defendant to supply the necessary documents and execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. The notice/communication dated 1109-2002 was returned to the plaintiff as not claimed. A legal notice was again issued on 07-10-2002 but, the said notice was also returned as not claimed. The plaintiff pleaded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but, since the defendant was not ready to perform his part, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for specific performance of contract.

4. The defendant filed his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant raised some preliminary objection about the authenticity of the alleged agreement of sale dated 30-07-2002. It was then pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff took the advantage of the illiteracy of the defendant and fraudulently obtained a thumb impression of the defendant on a stamp paper without disclosing the nature of the document and thereby committed breach of trust. According to the defendant, though the document was styled as agreement of sale, it did not amount to a legal contract in view of the fact that the document dated 30-07-2002 was a fraudulent and fabricated document. The defendant admitted that he was the owner of the suit property but, denied that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff at any point of time, much less on 30-07-2002. The other pleadings about the date of the execution of the sale-deed, the agreement to supply the 7/12 extracts were denied by the defendant. It was pleaded by the defendant that in the month of June-2002, the defendant was in urgent need of money as she had borrowed money from third parties for performing the marriage of her daughter by name Leela in the year 2001. Since t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document