JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 and Section 96 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2018 in O.S.No. 268 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District Court, Salem.)

1. The defendant in O.S.No. 268 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No. 268 of 2016 had been filed by the respondent seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.09.2014 which had been entered into between the respondent and the appellant herein.

3. On consideration of the evidence adduced, by Judgment dated 14.03.2018, the suit was decreed. Questioning such decree, the defendant had filed the present First Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were referred before the trial Court, namely, as plaintiff and defendant. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

5. In the plaint, it had been contended that the property, namely, land and building measuring 2551 sq.ft., in Patta No. 152, S.No. 4.54, Dadagapatti Village, Salem, belonged to the defendant, who was the beneficiary of a registered Gift Deed dated 26.06.2009 registered as Document No. 3513 of 2009 on the file of Dadhagapatti Sub Registrar Office. Subsequently, on 29.09.2014, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.22/- lakhs and a registered agreement of sale had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant and the document had been registered as Document No. 5009 of 2014 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Dadagapatti.

6. It is further claimed that on the very same day, ie., on 29.09.2014, the defendant had received a sum of Rs.4/- lakhs as advance. The defendant also handed over copy of the title deed of the property to the plaintiff. Among other terms in the agreement, the defendant had also agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.18/- lakhs from the plaintiff within a period of 11 months and execute the sale deed and surrender the possession. The plaintiff had paid a further advance amount of Rs.16/- lakhs on 30.09.2014 in the presence of a Notary Public at Salem and a receipt was also issued by the defendant. The plaintiff was due and liable to pay only a sum of Rs.2/- lakhs out of the total sale consideration of Rs.22/- lakhs.

7. The plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration. There was a very specific plea that the plaintiff had approached the defendant on 20.08.2015 asking her to receive the balance sale consideration. Again the plaintiff reiterated the plea on 28.10.2015 with the same request. The plaintiff was then constrained to issue a legal notice on 15.12.2015 stating that the plaintiff would be waiting in the Sub Registrar Office at Dadhagapatti on 28.12.2015 with the balance sale consideration and intimating to the defendant that she should come over to the Sub Registrar Office on that day to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant received the legal notice and sent a reply on 22.12.2015 denying execution of the agreement of sale and claiming that she had received only a sum of Rs.4/- lakhs from the plaintiff and requesting the plaintiff to grant three months time to settle the issues. The plaintiff therefore kept quite for sometime.

8. The defendant then issued a notice on 20.09.2016 wherein she stated that she had received a sum of Rs.4/- lakhs alone and she called upon the plaintiff to execute his part of the contract. The plaintiff sent a reply on 23.09.2016, again calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.2/- lakhs and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and to surrender possession.

9. Claiming that the defendant was trying to create encumbrances over the property to the disadvantage of