J u d g e m e n t:-The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgement and decree in A.S.No.266 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem confirming the judgement and decree in O.S.No.167 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.167 of 1988 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Salem for specific performance.

3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit properties originally belong to one A.Marimuthu Udayar. The said Marimuthu Udayar sold the suit properties to the first defendant on 8.2.1993 and on the same day, the first defendant executed an agreement of reconveyance to reconvey the properties within a period of 5 years if the sale price of Rs.3,500/- is repaid by the said Marimuthu Udayar to the first defendant. The said Marimuthu Udayar assigned the above said right of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiff on 29.4.1983 for proper and valid consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The said assignment dated 29.4.1983 was informed to the first defendant by the plaintiff in person and the plaintiff has also requested the first defendant to receive the sum of Rs.3,500/- and reconvey the properties to him.

4. Pending suit, the first defendant viz. Nagammal died intestate on 8.9.1988 leaving behind her legal heirs and they were brought on record as defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff is always ready, willing and to perform his part of the contract and get the reconveyance deed executed in his favour by paying the amount of Rs.3,500/-. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 3.7.1983 to the first defendant. He also issued another legal notice on 12.10.1987. Since the first defendant failed to reconvey the property, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:

The second defendant admitted that Marimuthu Udayar sold the suit properties to the first defendant on 8.2.1983. The second defendant denied execution of reconveyance agreement dated 8.2.1983 to reconvey the properties. The said reconveyance deed is forged one. The sale deed dated 8.2.1983 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff and the vendor. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The patta also stands in the name of the first defendant. The assignment in favour of the plaintiff dated 29.4.1983 is not true, valid and binding on the defendants. The defendants were not informed about the alleged assignment deed dated 29.4.1983. According to the defendants, the vendor Marimuthu Udayar borrowed Rs.5,000/- from one Venkataraman and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the said Venkataraman. Though the sale deed was executed for Rs.3,500/- in favour of the first defendant, Marimuthu Udayar actually received Rs.10,000/- and undertook to discharge the mortgage debt. Since the defendants are disputing the very reconveyance deed, the question of readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract does not arise. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial court, six witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and six documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6 on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and five documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B5.

7. The trial court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both parties, found that Exs.A1-assignment deed dated 29.4.1983 and Ex.A6-reconveyance agreement dated 8.2.1983 are not true and genuine. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the judgement and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.266 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem. The Lower Appellate Court though found that Ex.A1-Assignment deed and Ex.A6-reconveyance deed are t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document