1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal as against the Judgment dated 13.7.2001 passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Trial Court, while delivering Judgment in the Original Suit, had opined that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of specific performance or any other relief because of the fact that the Sale Agreement Ex.A.2 dated 10.7.1995 was held to be void and consequently, dismissed the Suit with costs.

3. The Trial Court has framed three issues for trial. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On the side of the Respondent/Defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked.

4. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit, the Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal before this Court.

5. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Point Nos.1 to 3: The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff urges before this Court that the Trial Court should have decreed the Suit as prayed for because of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and in fact, the execution of the documents concerned was not denied by the Respondent/ Defendant and a party who alleges fraud will have to prove the same in the manner known to law.

6. Continuing further, it is the contention of the Appellant that the trial Court ignored the evidence of P.W.2 who spoke about the whole transaction and there was nothing to discredit the evidence of the witness in this regard.

7. Moreover, the illiteracy of the witness viz., the Respondent/Defendant could not be an excuse and that the Respondent/Defendant had never sought the return of original documents from the Appellant/Plaintiff at any point of time, which is certainly an unfavourable circumstance against the Respondent/Defendant.

8. Besides the above, the Trial Court had not adverted to the ingredients of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act which prohibits the parties to speak against the contents of the documents.

9. In effect, the learned counsel for the Appellant/ Plaintiff submits that the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court in dismissing the Suit with costs are not proper and legally valid and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice.

10. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Defendant supports the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in dismissing the Suit filed by the Appellant/ Plaintiff without costs and also submits that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Ex.A.2-Sale Agreement dated 10.7.1995 was a void ab initio document and the Respondent/Defendant could ignore the same since it was a non-est in the eye of law and as such, this Court sitting in Appeal need not interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court.

11. The points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are:

1. Whether the Respondent/Defendant has executed Ex.A.1-Mortgage Deed dated 17.5.1993 in favour of the Appellant/ Plaintiff's father?

2. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff and Respondent/Defendant had entered into a sale agreement on 10.7.1995?

3. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction in directing the Respondent/ Defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule mentioned property in his favour on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- from him?

12. P.W.1-Appellant (Plaintiff) in his evidence has deposed that one Jayamurugan, Murugan, Ranimari (Defendant), Radhabai approached him for the purpose of loan and that the Respondent/Defendant in connection with her son’s mental medical treatment asked for a loan by showing her house documents and after receiving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Respondent/Defendant executed Ex.A.1-Registered Mortgage Deed dated 17.5.1993 and the Respondent/Defendant paid the interest for six months and thereafter, she had not paid any money towards Principal or interest.