The judgment emphasizes the application of Section 92 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to determine the genuineness of a sale agreement and the burden of proof on the party contesting the validity of a registered document.

1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2006 in O.S.No.54 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property absolutely belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement on 24.11.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,75,000/-and on that day, Rs.3 lakhs was paid as advance by the plaintiff and the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid and the sale deed was to be executed by 31.1.2005. The possession was handed over to the plaintiff. Since the property was mortgaged in Syndicate Bank, Salem Town, the defendant has given an assurance to discharge the loan and handover the original title deeds with the discharge certificate. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On 1.12.2004, the plaintiff paid Rs.75,000/- and on 8.12.2004, he paid Rs.75,000/- and on 22.12.2004, he paid Rs.65,000/- and the balance was only Rs.60,000/- to be paid. The plaintiff made several requests to the defendant and the defendant has given evasive reply and hence, the plaintiff wanted to purchase the property free from all encumbrances. The plaintiff issued notice, but the plaintiff has not received any reply from the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance; alternatively, the plaintiff prayed for a direction to the defendant to refund Rs.5,15,000/-together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and for costs.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant has not offered to sell the property to the plaintiff and no sale agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit property. The defendant has not received any sale consideration and the possession was not handed over to the plaintiff at any point of time. Till now, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant has not given any assurance regarding the discharge of the loan and hand over the original title deeds to the plaintiff at any point of time. The documents are forged one and the payment endorsement was also forged one. The real facts are that the defendant and one Sivagamasundari entered into "Bokkiam deed" (nghf;fpak;) (usufructuary mortgage) in respect of the suit property for Rs.1 lakh for a period of three years and the amount was also received from the said Sivagamasundari. After expiry of the "Bokkiam deed", the plaintiff approached the defendant to give the property for "Bokkiam" for Rs.1 lakh and the Bokkiam amount was directly paid by the plaintiff to the previous Bokkiam person who is Sivagamasundari and settle the amount to her. The plaintiff was residing in the suit property as per 'Bokkiam' only. During that period, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to sell the property and settle the bank loan of the defendant. The defendant refused to sell the property and subsequently, the plaintiff himself prepared and fabricated the forged sale agreement with an intention to grab the property. The defendant has not signed at any point of time. The plaintiff has not been in possession of the suit property at any point of time, on account of the forged and fabricated sale agreement. It is true that the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant, but the defendant has not replied to the above legal notice. It will not bind the defendant at any point of time, because, there was no contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the suit. The defendant ultimately prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and in the written statement and the arguments of the counsel for both parties, framed three issues fo