JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S.No.103 of 1987 reversing that of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, in O.S.No.1397 of 1986. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal.

2. The above second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 31.8.1999. However, on appeal by the respondents herein in civil appeal by the respondents herein Civil Appeal No.4376 of 2000, the Supreme Court remitted the appeal on the ground that no question of law had been framed as required under Sec.100, C.P.C.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement for sale deed 22.7.1985 by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in the event of the defendants failing to do so the Court may direct execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff undertaking to sell the suit property. It was agreed that the property shall be sold for a consideration of Rs.8,001. The defendant had also received a sum of Rs.7,000 as advance in terms of the agreement dated 22.7.1985. The defendant had agreed to execute a sale deed within one month after getting permission from the competent authority under the Pondicherry Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and after receiving the balance of sale consideration the defendant had also handed over all the original title deeds. Subsequently, the plaintiff had also obtained permission from the competent authority as per letter dated 8.10.1985 and thereafter he had approached the defendants on several occasions calling upon them to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration. But in spite of such repeated demands the defendants failed to comply with the demands. By a lawyer’s notice dated 26.10.1985 the defendants were called upon to execute the sale deed on 1.11.1985 at 10.00 a.m. at the Sub-Registrar’s Office at Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry. Though on that date, the plaintiff waited for the defendants, they did no turn up. A reply notice was received from the defendants dated 31.10.1985 contending false allegations. Hence, the suit.

4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant it was contended that she never entered into the alleged agreement on 22.7.1985. She also expressed surprise as to how the second defendant being her own husband could be a party to the agreement since the suit property was the absolute property of the first defendant and in her possession. The true facts according to the defendants, are that the first defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.7,000 from the plaintiff and her husband and in consideration of the same, she had deposited the title deeds as a security for repayment of money, within a period of two years. The parties are closely related and the first defendant and her husband/ second defendant, were not in good terms for a long time. Taking advantage of the said circumstances, the plaintiff had obtained first defendant’s thumb impression on several papers purporting to create equitable mortgage. Therefore, according to the first defendant, the plaintiff appears to have made use of such papers for the purpose of creating documents in his favour. In her reply dated 31.10.1985 the plaintiff was called upon to furnish a copy of the agreement. But the plaintiff had not furnished the same. The first defendant did not also apply for any permission from the Authorised Officer under the Urban Land Ceiling Act for permission. The plaintiff appears to have gained advantage due to the first defendant’s illiteracy and the document was not belonging on her and she never intended to apply for any permission to sell the property to the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court on consideration of the said pleadings and the evidence held that the plaintiff had proved the suit agreement. It was further held that the first defendant did not succeed in establishing any fraud on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document