ORDER: This revision is preferred against the Order dated 9.6.1999 made in O.S.No.218 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam declining to admit the document. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

2.O.S.No.218 of 1996: Plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Case of the plaintiff is that by an agreement dated 26.9.1988 styled as “Agreement of Conditional Sale” executed by the defendants, the defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,000. As per the terms, the defendants have to pay the amount of Rs.1,30,000 by 30.5.1989. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was put in possession of the properties-items 1 and 2 of the schedule of the agreement. On re-payment of the amount of Rs.1,30,000, the plaintiff is to re-deliver the items 1 and 2 to the defendants. The agreement recites that in the event, the defendants failed to repay the amount on or before 30.5.1989, the defendants would sell items 1 and 2 along with item No.3 to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000. Value of items 1 and 2 is Rs.1,30,000 and the value of item No.3 is Rs.30,000. The agreement of sale to be completed by 5.6.1989 i.e., between 30.5.1989and 5.6.1989. The plaintiff has requested the defendants to execute the sale deed but the defendants were postponing the same under flimsy pretext thereupon the plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendants on 15.7.1989 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The first defendant received the notice but has not cared to reply. The second defendant refused to receive the notice. The defendants are bent upon defrauding theplaintiff. In law, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the agreement by completing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement dated 26.9.1989 and for directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property. Alternatively, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs.1,49,735 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

3. Denying the plaint allegations, the defendants have filed written statement contending that the suit deocument is the outcome of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The plaintiff was working as a village administrative officer and has stealthily obtained signatures of the defendants on stamped as well as plain papers. In or about the month of June, 1988, when the defendants have approached the plaintiff to obtain patta for their lands, the plaintiff has surreptitiously used the said signed papers in collusion with the scribe and attesting witnesses and brought about the fradulent document. The document purported to be a deed of document and cannot be an agreement of sale by any stretch of imagination,. The said document is unenforceable in law. The defendant had at no time borrowed any amount that too a huge amount of Rs.1,30,000. the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.

4. During the course of trial, when P.W.1 was in the box, the suit document dated 26.9.198 was sought to be marked, objectiion was raised regarding the marking of the document on the ground that the document is insufficiently stamped and not admissible for want of proper stamp duty and registration.

5. Upon consideration of the contention of both parties, the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the document is in the nature of mortgage which is to be registered and not sufficiently stamped. Finding that the document is a mortgage deed, the learned District Munsif held, Declining to admit the document in question, the trial Court adjourned the case for continuation of examination of P.W.1.

6. Aggrieved over the order passed declining to admit the document, the palintiff has preferred this revision.

7. Drawing the attention of the Court to the recitals in the document in question, the learned counsel f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document