JUDGMENT :

The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2012.

2. The defendant is the appellant in the appeal suit and the respondent plaintiff instituted the suit for Specific Performance.

3. The facts in nutshell as narrated in the plaint are that the suit property belong to the defendant and he got it from his family partition through Registered Partition deed dated 05.02.1991. Since then the defendant became the owner of the suit schedule property and all Revenue records are also stands in the name of the defendant.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant offered to sell the suit property and entered into an agreement for sale on 01.07.2010, by which, the sale consideration is fixed as Rs.11,70,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) and out of the total sale consideration, Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh only) was paid by way of an advance. It was agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) to be paid by the plaintiff within a period of two years from the date of sale agreement i.e., on or before 01.07.2012 and to execute a Registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at his cost and to deliver possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff has stated that he was ready and willing to complete his portion of the contract. He demanded for the execution of the sale of the suit property by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- and the defendant had given an evasive reply, which resulted in institution for suit for Specific Performance.

5. The defendant filed a written statement, denying the allegations set out in the plaint. The agreement dated 01.07.2010 is admitted by the parties. The advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- was also admitted by the parties. However, the defendant has stated that his signatures were obtained in the blank papers and the suit sale agreement was provided thereafter in his absence. Further, it is contended that the defendant had never intended to sell the suit schedule property and the agreement for sale was signed in lieu of the loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. In other words, the defendant borrowed a loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the plaintiff and signed certain blank papers and the blank papers are utilized for the preparation of the sale agreement and thereafter, at no point of time, the defendant had intended to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. Denying all other allegations, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court framed the issues as to whether the brother of the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit sale agreement on 01.07.2010 or not; Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to comply with his portion of the contract on receipt of the balance sale consideration as agreed between the parties and for what relief the plaintiff is entitled to.

7. With reference to the issues, the trial Court considered the documents as well as the evidences produced by the respective parties and arrived a conclusion that the suit sale agreement dated 01.07.2010 is true and genuine and the signature of the defendant is also established by the plaintiff. The trial Court, while arriving a conclusion that the suit sale agreement is true and genuine one, proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Specific Performance. The property stands in the name of the defendant and the said fact was also established by the plaintiff and further, the suit sale agreement was also established. The defense on behalf of the defendant has not been accepted. The trial Court though considered the genuinity of the suit sale agreement, failed to consider the terms and conditions