Production of a receipt for specified sum cannot be treated as agreement.

(Original Side Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2001 in C.S.No.153 of 1997 on the file of this Court.)

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit having been dismissed with costs, the plaintiff has come forward with this Original Side Appeal.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance to direct the respondent/defendant to execute a sale deed pursuant to the agreement dated 17.3.1996 on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs in respect of the suit schedule property, namely land and building situate at No.68, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit property.

3. As per the plaint averments, the appellant/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the above said property on 17.3.1996 and paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards part consideration, while the total consideration was fixed at Rs.30 lakhs. It is claimed that the respondent gave a stamped receipt dated 17.3.1996 for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. It is stated that the appellant was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs and called upon the respondent/defendant on number of occasions to accept the same and execute the sale deed as per the agreement. It is further stated that the respondent was evading, that he went on transfer to Tuticorin without any intimation to the appellant, that the appellant found out the whereabouts of the respondent at Tuticorin and approached him there for executing the sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration and that the respondent, instead of complying with the terms of the agreement, attempted to alienate the suit schedule property. It is also claimed by the appellant/plaintiff that pursuant to the agreement, he was put in possession. Based on the above averments, the appellant/plaintiff laid the suit for specific performance and for permanent injunction.

4. The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing a written statement, contending that the respondent never entered into any agreement much less the one dated 17.3.1996 in respect of the suit schedule property, that the claim of the appellant about the agreement was fraudulent, mischievous and fabricated, that he never issued any receipt for the sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 17.3.1996 as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff and since there was no agreement, there is no question of any relief being granted to the appellant/plaintiff. It is also stated that since there was no agreement, there is no question of the appellant/plaintiff being ready and willing nor has shown any proof for payment of any balance sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs. It is also stated that when he was in Tuticorin, the appellant set up one Ms.Sudha and coerced him to sign certain documents and that thereafter, on 17.3.1996, on the invitation of the said Sudha and her mother Mangai, he visited her house where the respondent coerced him to agree for a second marriage with the said Sudha and in that process, he was forced to sign on a blank revenue stamp paper and certain other stamp papers, apart from coercing him to write in a stamp paper as though he borrowed a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the said Sudha and agreed to repay the same on or before 17.3.1999. According to the respondent/defendant, he was forced to sign such blank documents and write down the matters out of coercion and undue influence. He is also stated to have lodged a complaint on 21.3.1996 against Sudha, her mother Mangai and the appellant with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thattaparai Police Station, Tuticorin. According to the respondent, the suit schedule property was mortgaged by him with the State Bank of India for a sum of Rs.96,000/-. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the learned single Judge, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, besides P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined, while the defendant examined himself as D.