JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2013 passed in O.S. No. 15 of 2010 on the file of the District Court, Perambalur.

1. The defendant is before this Court as the appellant.

2. The reliefs sought for in the suit O.S. No. 15 of 2010, Principal District Court, Perambalur:

“TAMIL”

3. Suit Property:

“TAMIL”

4. Plaintiffs case:

(i) The plaintiffs have filed the above suit O.S. No. 15 of 2010 on the file of the District Court, Perambalur seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 26.02.2010. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property belonged to the defendant who had entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 26.02.2010 to sell the same for a total sale consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/-. On the date of the signing of the agreement, he had received an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the balance of Rs. 20,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 26.06.2010 and on receipt of the said balance the defendant had undertaken to execute and register the sale-deed.

(ii) While so, all of a sudden on 26.04.2010, the defendant had required funds urgently and had approached the plaintiffs with the said request. The original sale-deed was with the 2nd plaintiff and therefore an endorsement could not be made on the reverse. The 1st plaintiff had obtained a promissory note for the same and the defendant had assured that as and when the 2nd plaintiff returns he would make an endorsement on the agreement of sale. However, he did not comply with this promise.

(iii) Thereafter, despite repeated requests the defendant did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale-deed. This constrained the plaintiffs to issue a legal notice dated 25.06.2010, to which there was no response from the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs had come forward with the said suit.

5. Defendant’s case:

(i) The defendant had woven a defense denying the very execution of the agreement of sale. He had narrated the manner in which the suit property had come to his share.

(ii) It was the defendant’s case that the originally larger extent of the suit property belonged to one Jamsa Beevi, who was the first wife of the Muthalif Saibu, the defendant’s father. She had settled the larger extent of the suit property measuring an extent of 11.35 acres on her husband along with the another extent of 5.61 acres of land. The defendant’s father had sold three acres during his life time from out of the 11.35 acres.

(iii) It was the further narrative of the defendant that one Sakthivel, Sengunan (Postman), Jayapal and one Parimanam have asked Muthalif Saibu to sell the property, which was turned down by the defendant’s father. Therefore, upset and enraged by the same they had manipulated the revenue accounts to create a partition amongst the legal heirs of the Muthalif Saibu, even during his lifetime.

(iv) Thereafter, they had manipulated a power of attorney dated 25.09.2008 from the defendant’s elder brother, Raghamathullah. Based on this power of attorney, they had executed the sale-deed in favour of one Subramani, in respect of an extent of 3.70 acres. It is the case of the defendant that all these transactions were sham and nominal since the possession continued to remain with his father. On 08.12.2009, the defendant’s father had executed a settlement deed in favour of his second wife Umsalma Beevi, the defendant’s mother and he died on 16.12.2009.

(v) As regards the agreement of sale put forward by the plaintiff, the defendant has denied the same stating that his thumb impression in the document has been forged. He would submit that he had been afflicted with a neurological disorder from his childhood and he cannot affix a thumb impression even with the help of others. Therefore, he was only in the habit of affixing his signature. Therefore, the left thumb impression found in the agreement of sale was a rank fabrication/forgery.

(vi) The defendant would