Honble RAVEENDRAN, J.—This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance - OS No.290/1980 on the file of District Munsiff, Tindivanam.

Pleadings

2. In the plaint, the plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant (Adilakshmi) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him under an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, and received Rs.2,000/- as advance. She agreed to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.1,000/- within three months. Possession of the suit property was delivered to him, under the said agreement. He issued a notice dated 14.2.1980 calling upon the first defendant to receive the balance price and execute the sale deed. The first defendant sent a reply denying the agreement. To avoid performing the agreement of sale, the first defendant executed a nominal sale deed in regard to the suit property in favour of the second defendant (first respondent herein), who was her close relative. The said sale was neither valid nor binding on him. On the said averments, he sought specific performance of the agreement of sale, against the defendant, alleging that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

3. The defendants denied the allegation that the first defendant had executed an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 in favour of the plaintiff or that she had delivered possession of the suit property to him. They contended that plaintiff had concocted and forged the document with the help of his henchmen to defraud the defendants. They claimed that the first defendant had executed a valid sale deed dated 11.2.1980 in favour of the second defendant and had delivered possession of the suit property to her; and that the second defendant had put up a hut in the schedule property and was actually residing therein. The second defendant raised an additional contention that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore, the sale in her favour was valid.

4. During the pendency of the suit first defendant died, and the third defendant (second respondent herein) was impleaded as her legal representative, who adopted the written statement of the second defendant.

Issues and the Judgment

5. On the said pleadings, three issues were framed by the trial court : (i) whether the agreement put forth by the plaintiff was true or concocted ? (ii) whether the second defendant had purchased the suit property for valid consideration ? and (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance ? The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the scribe of the agreement (Ramaswami Pillai) as PW-2 and an attesting witness to the sale agreement (Venkatesha Pillai) as PW-3. The agreement of sale was exhibited as Ex. A-1. The notice and reply were marked as Ex. A2 and A4. The second defendant, (purchaser of the site), gave evidence as DW-1 and the third defendant, who was also a witness to the sale deed dated 11.2.1980, was examined as DW-2. The sale deed dated 11.2.1980 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant was marked as Ex.B2 and previous title deed was exhibited as Ex. B4. The plaintiff and his witnesses gave evidence that the sale agreement was duly executed by first defendant in favour of plaintiff. The defendants gave evidence about the sale in favour of second defendant and denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff.

6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984. It held that the agreement of sale put forth by plaintiff was false and must have been created after the sale on 11.2.1980 in favour of second defendant, by using some old stamp papers in his possession. The said finding was based on the following facts and circumstances :

(a) The sale agreement (A-1) was not executed on currently purchased stamp paper, but was written on two stamp papers, one purchased on 25.8.1973 in the name of Thiruvengadam a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document