The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the validity of an agreement of sale and the absence of coercion or undue influence in reaching a decision on specific performance.

The defendant in O.S.No.134 of 2000 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge at Kallakurichi is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff thereon is the respondent.

2. For convenience sake, the parties in the second appeal are referred to as per their rank in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 134 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi for specific performance of an agreement dated 110. 1999 directing the defendant to execute and register a regular sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff within the time fixed by the Court or on his failure to do so, the Court itself shall execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for costs.

4. The case of the plaintiff as could be seen in the plaint in nutshell is as follows:-

.(a) The defendant entered into a registered agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 110. 1999 agreeing to convey the suit properties for a consideration of Rs.1,12,750/-. The defendant received an advance of Rs.75,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.37,750/- shall be payable on or before 17. 2000 and on such payment, the defendant shall execute a sale deed in his favour. Though, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance amount of Rs.37,750/-, the defendant, instead of executing the sale deed, sent a legal notice dated 312. 1999 alleging that the agreement of sale has been obtained out of threat, coercion and undue influence to ensure that the defendant give evidence in the Sessions Case favourably to the accused, who are related to the plaintiff. The said notice has been replied suitably on 1. 2000.

.(b) The sale agreement is valid in law and has not been executed for the purpose as stated in the notice issued by the defendant dated 312. 1999. Even subsequently, the plaintiff through messengers and directly demanded the defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit properties. However, the defendant had been evading and postponing. Hence, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 110. 1999.

5. The defendant filed the written statement containing the following facts:-

.(a) It is true that the suit properties belong to him. However, it is not true to say that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 110. 1999 wherein he has agreed to convey the suit properties for a sale consideration of Rs.1,12,750/- and received a sum of Rs.75,000/-as advance and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs. 37,750/- on or before 17. 2000.

.(b) The plaintiff is a Village Panchayat President. There was a dispute between the family of the defendant and the family of one Gurubaran on account of the marriage of the defendants son Parasuraman with the Gurubaran s sister Uma. Consequently the defendants wife Saroja was brutally murdered on 3. 1998. A criminal case was prosecuted in s.C.No.80/99 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram against Gurubaran and eight others. The accused in the Sessions case are all related to the plaintiff. The defendant is the prime witness in the murder case. The plaintiff is also one of the witnesses on the prosecution side. As the plaintiff is the President of the Village Panchayat, he had been exerting pressure on the defendant to give evidence in a manner favourable to the accused. The defendant was not agreeable to such a course and hence the plaintiff and other men of the accused got the agreement of sale executed by him. Thus, the agreement of sale was obtained out of threat, coercion and undue influence. The defendant never intended to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff. The defendant out of fear and compulsion had no other option except to sign the document and to have it registered fearing danger to his life.

.(c) The suit properties were acquired by the defendant for his