JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.23 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the Mahila Court (Additional Incharge, Sessions cum District Judge), Tiruvannamalai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2012 in O.S.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.)

1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same litigative rank as before the Trial Court. The Second Appeal arises out of a suit O.S.No.5 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28.10.2009 or in the alternate to pay a sum of Rs.4,57,200/- with subsequent interest of 12% to the plaintiff till realisation. It is necessary to briefly allude to the facts in order to appreciate the challenge to the Judgment and Decree by the defendant.

Plaintiff’s case:

2. The suit schedule property admittedly belongs to the defendant. The defendant had purchased the property from one Velauthammal under a registered sale deed dated 19.03.1996. After the purchase, the defendant has been residing in the said property as its absolute owner. Thereafter, the defendant was in urgent need of funds and she decided to alienate the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiff come to know about this offer of the defendant and had entered into negotiation with the defendant and agreed to purchase the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. The negotiations were reduced into writing in the form of an agreement of sale dated 28.10.2009. On the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid and balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid within a period of two years from the date of the agreement.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to proceed with the sale from the date of the agreement. He has also submitted that on the date of the sale agreement the defendant had handed over the original sale deed dated 19.03.1996. Despite repeated requests the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. This constrained the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 29.11.2010, which was received by the defendant on 03.12.2010. However, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, left with no other alternative the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

Defendant’s case:

4. The defendant had filed a detailed written statement denying that she had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. It is her case that the plaintiff was managing the Mini Bus owned by his mother-in-law one Razia Begum, wife of K.M.Yusuf. The plaintiff who was working as a School Teacher found it very difficult to continue to operate the bus, he therefore, proposed to lease or sell the bus. One R.Murugan, who was well known to the defendant and who was working as a conductor in the bus decided to purchase the same and he conveyed his willingness to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to sell the mini bus for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. The bus was also handed over to the said R.Murugan on 10.07.2009. Meanwhile, on 13.10.2009, the mini bus met with an accident, in which the bus had not only sustained damages but a third party claim was also made against his mother-in-law.

5. The plaintiff therefore insisted upon the said R.Murugan to offer a property as a security. R.Murugan who is well known to the defendant convinced the defendant and her son C.Murugan to stand surety for him. The defendant and her son were brought to the Registrar Office. Believing the words of R.Murugan the defendant and her son, C.Murugan had executed the documents indicated by the said R.Murugan. They were not informed that it was a sale agreement.

6. The defendant would further submit that in the first week of November 2010 her son C.Murugan had received a registered letter dated 07.10.2010 from Raziabegum, the mother-in-law of the pl