PONT OF LAW: readiness and willingness in completing her part of the sale transaction at the earliest point of time, all would only go to disclose that as the sale agreement had not been really executed between the parties concerned, accordingly, the plaintiff had also not endeavoured to obtain the sale deed from the defendant qua the suit properties at the earliest point of time and accordingly, it is also noted that the plaintiff had not endeavoured to secure the possession of the suit properties at the time of the sale agreement and the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.08.2008 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.117 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 20.08.2008 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.117 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 2003 is the appellant in the second appeal.

4. Suit for specific performance and possession.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit properties belong to the defendant and the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.04.2002 by way of which, the defendant agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,80,000/- on the date of the agreement of sale and it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount of Rs.22,000/- should be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within one year from the date of the sale agreement i.e. on or before 24.04.2003 and that the defendant should execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract in paying the balance sale consideration and obtaining the sale deed executed and registered from the defendant. However, the defendant had been evading to perform his part of the contract despite the several requests of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 20.03.2003 calling upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract and the defendant sent a reply on 26.03.2003 containing false and frivolous allegations. The defendants is now attempting to alienate the suit properties to the third parties with a view to deprive the lawful right for the plaintiff under the sale agreement. Hence, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant for appropriate reliefs.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the suit properties belong to the defendant and however, disputed the case of the plaintiff that he had agreed to alienate the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- and in that connection, the parties had entered into an agreement of sale on 24.04.2002 and that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the defendant as advance on the date of the sale agreement and that the parties had agreed to fix the time limit of one year for enabling the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,000/- and on the other hand, according to the defendant, no such agreement of sale had been entered into between him and the plaintiff and he had not received any sum much less of Rs.1,80,000/- on the date of the alleged sale agreement and put forth the case that the sale agreement projected by the plaintiff is a fabricated document and it was created with the assistance of the plaintiff's husband to obtain unjust enrichment and therefore, there is no question of the defendant requiring to perform any performance under the forged sale agreement and it is false to state that the plaintiff had been requesting the defendant to perform his part of the contract on several occasions and to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff, the defendant sent a reply containing true facts. According to the defendant, his son Arivazhagan, his brother's son Anbarasan are engaged in a business by name "Harico Lab" and in connection with the running of the abovesaid business, they had obtained loan from the plaintiff's husband Manivel and at the tim