The judgment underscores the requirement for strict pleading and proof in suits for specific performance, emphasizing the importance of written instruments and the need for reliable evidence.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

This suit has been filed for a specific performance directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in pursuance of the agreement dated 17-3-1996 on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15.00 lakhs, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or dealing with the suit property and for costs.

2. Plaint averments are as folllows :-

The defendant is the owner of the land and building situate at No. 68 Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Madras 17. An agreement for sale was entered into by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on 17-3-1996 and the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 15.00 lakhs towards part consideration. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 30.00 lakhs. The defendant has given a stamped receipt dated 17-3-1996 for receipt of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. Time was not the essence of the contract. As the plaintiff was already in possession of a portion of the said premises, he had been calling upon the defendant to complete the sale. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. He had also been calling upon the defendant to accept the said balance of Rs. 15.00 lakhs and execute the sale deed. The defendant who had been evading the plaintiff, got himself transferred from Madras and he is not employed as Assistant Manager, S.B.I. Tuticorin. The plaintiff had also called upon the defendant in Tuticorin and asked him to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance of sale consideration. The defendant is attempting to alienate the suit property. If the defendant deals with the third party in respect of the suit property, the plaintiff will be put to great loss and hardship and his right, title and interest over the suit property will be seriously affected. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement alleging that the defendant has not entered into, any agreement in respect of the suit property on 17-3-1996 and hence the question of making any payment following the agreement does not arise in this case. The allegations of agreement and payment on 17-3-1996 are totally mischievous, fraudulent and frivolous. The plaintiff has filed this suit with a malicious motive and mala fide intention to grab the property of the defendant. The defendant had never issued any receipt for a sum of Rs. 15.00 lakhs which the plaintiff never paid nor has he ever agreed to pay. The so-called receipt is a fabricated document. There was neither agreement nor payment. Since the defendant never agreed to sell the suit property. no question of putting the plaintiff into possession of a portion of the suit property would arise. The plaintiff had been fraudulently setting up things behind the back of the defendant in order to get the property of the defendant and also to get the defendant involved in a criminal case filed by one Sudha who was an instrument at the hands of the plaintiff. The defendant was not duty bound to intimate his transfer to the plaintiff who was not at all concerned with the defendant in any manner, except the case of assault of the defendant by the plaintiff and his gangmen on 17-3-1996. The plaintiff is a person of dubious character and conduct. In one such incident the plaintiff was found to have set up one lady by name Sudha. The plaintiff, Sudha, and her mother were staying in a room at hotel Geetha International at Tuticorin on 17-2-1996. Sudha telephoned to the defendant and asked him to come over to the hotel room. The defendant went to the Hotel along with his brother Subramaniam. He met Sudha, her mother Mangai and the plaintiff. The plaintiff was introduced by Sudha as her father's relative. Sudha and her associates demanded the defendant to spend money to start a STD Booth at Madras for her brother by name Prakash. On 17-3-1996, the said Sudha and her mother had been to the defendant's bank at Tuticor