This appeal suit had been filed by the Defendant in OS.No.15 of 2006, who suffered a judgment and decree against her.

2. The above suit had been filed by the Respondent herein, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 16.6.2005 on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, who is the Appellant herein, from dealing with the property.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant was the owner of the vacant land, having purchased the same on 6.4.1998 at Natham Town. The land was purchased by obtaining loan from the Cooperative Society and a house was also constructed. It was stated that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had entered into an agreement of sale dated 16.6.2005 for a total consideration of Rs.5 lakhs and an advance of Rs.4,50,000/- was also paid. It was further mentioned in the agreement of sale that the balance of Rs.50,000/- should be paid by the Plaintiff on or before 15.2.2006 and on such payment, the Defendant should execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. It was further provided in the agreement that the Plaintiff is entitled to seek specific performance of the same. It had been specifically pleaded that the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement of sale. She had sent a notice on 2.2.2006, seeking specific performance. A reply was sent, stating that the agreement of sale had been created by the Plaintiff. It had been further stated that the Defendant was attempting to deal with the property and consequently, the suit had been filed as stated above, seeking specific performance on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-.

4. The Defendant had filed a written statement, stating that the Defendant had obtained a loan of Rs.2 lakhs and at that time, the Plaintiff had obtained signatures in blank stamp papers. It had been further stated that the Defendant had paid interest till December 2005. It had been further stated that the Plaintiff had utilised the signed blank stamp papers and had created the agreement of sale. It had been, therefore, stated that the suit should be dismissed.

5. An additional written statement was also filed by the Defendant, stating that the suit had been filed on the basis of a forged agreement of sale. It had been further stated that the property had been mortgaged with the Cooperative Society and there was a due of Rs.3 lakhs towards the said mortgage. It had been further stated that there was an attachment by the Agricultural Bank for payment of Rs.6 lakhs. There was also another mortgage to a private party to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The property was also subjected to attachment by an order of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai. It had been stated that the property, which is so steeped in mortgages, could not have been the subject of an agreement of sale. It had been further stated that the Plaintiff had no means to pay the advance of Rs.4,50,000/-.

6. A reply had also been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, stating that on the basis of the written statement, issues had been framed and at the time of advancing oral evidence, the additional written statement had been filed. It had been stated that the Defendant had admitted in the written statement that she had entered into an agreement of sale and consequently, a contrary stand taken in the additional written statement has to be rejected.

7. The parties went on trial. During the trial, the following issues were framed by the court below:-

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief sought in the plaint?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled any other relief?

8. During the trial, the Plaintiff had examined herself as PW.1 and also examined three other witnesses as PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4, who were the attestors and the scribe to the agreement of sale respectively. The Plaintiff had marked three documents, namely, the agreement of sale dated 16.6.2005, the advocate notice dated 2.2.2006 and th