Discrepancy in purchase of Stamp paper and dale of sale agreement will not affect agreement of sale.

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 9. 2006 made in O.S.No.612/2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Coimbatore in and by which the learned District Judge after analysing the evidence found that the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim and accordingly decreed the suit.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the Original Suit. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3. Plaintiff states as follows:

3. 1. The first defendant is the widow and defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of one Moses Thiagarajan, since deceased. They have inherited the estate of Moses Thiagarajan. The suit property had belonged to one Elisabeth, wife of Draviam, who is the mother of Moses Thiagarajan and she is also dead. While alive, she had bequeathed it under a will dated 6. 1984 to Moses Thiagarajan. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 5 are the legal representatives-in-interest of Moses Thyagarajan in respect of the suit property.

3. 2. Moses Thiagarajan when he was alive had entered into a written agreement of sale on 110. 2003 with the plaintiff promising to sell the property to the latter free of encumbrances for the sum of Rs.6,25,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs and Twenty Five thousand only). On the said date, Moses Thiagarajan had received from the plaintiff the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as advance sale consideration, which fact is also recited in the Agreement itself. A period of eleven months had been stipulated for the completion of the contract, as Moses Thiagarajan wanted to go to Madras for medical treatment and consequently requested time to make arrangement of delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiff.

3. 3. The plaintiff had always been and even now is ready and willing to specifically perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff, after death of Moses Thiagarajan had appraised all the defendants about the agreement and offered to pay the balance of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) and asked them to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, since they are bound under Law to do so. The second defendant often goes away to Delhi and the other defendants pretend that there was no co-operation amongst themselves and therefore, they were postponing to perform their part of the contract under some pretext or other. In view of the attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff caused a notice dated 17. 2004 to be issued by his counsel demanding specific performance of the contract by receiving the balance of sale consideration and executing the sale deed and having it registered at his costs and expenses. Defendants 1 to 3 evaded receipt of the notice. Defendants 4 and 5 received the notice on 17. 2004. They did not send any reply. The defendants have failed to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed. Hence this suit.

4. Defendants 1-3 state as follows:

4. 1. The relationship between the plaintiff and Mr. Moses Thiagarajan is one of lender and borrower.

4. 2. Late Mosses Thiagarajan borowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) of loan from the plaintiff in November, 2002. At that time, the title deed of the suit property was given to the plaintiff. The title deed is in the name of Elizabeth, the late Mother of late Mr. Mosses Thiagarajan. In order to safe guard his money, which was given as loan to late Mosses Thiagarajan, the plaintiff herein obtained signature of late Mosses Thiagarajan in a stamped paper. Later on the plaintiff in order to capture the valuable suit property has fabricated and forged an alleged agreement of sale.

4. 3. The recitals in the alleged agreement of sale are fictious and concocted. The Plaintiff who pays Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as advance towards sale price is taking 11 months for balance of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). This is unbelievable. Even then assuming, on the date of alleged completion of 11 months i.e. on 19. 2003 the plain