Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case G. Rajasuria Poorani Ammal vs. S.T. Prabhavathi:

Case Details * Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras * Case Number: A.S.No.147 of 2009 * Date Decided: 08-03-2012 * Subject: Civil Law - Property Law (!) * Acts Referred: Evidence Act (S.114(f), S.114(e)) and Specific Relief Act (S.16, S.16(c), S.20) (!)

Facts of the Case * The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.03.2005 (Ex.A1) for a total consideration of Rs.6,51,200/-, with an advance of Rs.1,01,001/- already paid (!) . * The defendant resisted the suit, claiming the agreement was forged and fabricated, stating she never intended to sell and was a widow (!) . * The defendant alleged that a broker named Rajendran obtained her signatures on blank papers for a loan of Rs.50,000/- and used them to create the agreement (!) . * The defendant claimed she had no knowledge of the plaintiff and that the property was undervalued (!) . * The trial court decreed the suit, and the defendant appealed (!) .

Issues Raised in Appeal 1. Whether the defendant's sale of the property pendente lite (Ex.A6) deprived her of the right to challenge the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness (!) . 2. Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit despite evidence disputing the genuineness of the agreement (!) . 3. Whether the non-framing of an issue relating to the plaintiff's readiness and willingness was fatal to the judgment (!) . 4. Whether there was perversity or illegality in the trial court's judgment (!) .

Court's Findings and Reasoning * Locus Standi: The court held that selling the property pendente lite does not deprive the defendant of her right to challenge the agreement or the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, citing the principle that the transferee cannot take pleas antithetical to the vendor (!) (!) (!) (!) . * Genuineness of Agreement: The court found the defendant's case inconsistent; in the written statement, she claimed a broker obtained blank signatures, but during trial, she claimed the plaintiff obtained them from the broker to fabricate the agreement (!) (!) . * Readiness and Willingness: The court noted the plaintiff sent a notice letter (Ex.A2) via Certificate of Posting, attracting presumptions under Section 114(f) and (e) of the Evidence Act regarding the common course of business (!) (!) . * Defendant's Conduct: The defendant's alienation of the property shortly after filing a counter claiming she would not do so demonstrated her lack of respect for the court and contradicted her claims of innocence (!) (!) . * Trial Court's Discretion: The court affirmed that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence, noting the defendant's prevaricative stands and the lack of perversity or illegality in the findings regarding the agreement's genuineness (!) (!) (!) . * Non-Framing of Issue: The court ruled that even though a specific issue on readiness and willingness was not framed, the trial court had dealt with the matter in detail in its judgment, making the omission non-fatal (!) .

Final Decision * The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the arguments advanced by the defendant (!) (!) (!) (!) . * There was no order as to costs (!) .