JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2016 made in O.S.No. 160 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 160 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No. 160 of 2012 had been filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12.09.2012 whereby the defendant had agreed to convey the property to which she was the absolute owner, namely, land and building at Tirupur in old Ward No.13, New No. 17 to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.10/- lakhs. The agreement of sale was not registered. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid an advance of Rs.8/- lakhs towards part sale consideration at the time when the agreement was entered into and he had undertaken to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2/- lakhs within a period of 75 days and that it was covenanted that, on receipt of the said amount, the defendant should come forward to execute the sale deed. It was stated that the defendant had handed over the original title documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since the defendant attempted to alienate the property, the plaintiff issued notice dated 27.10.2012 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant issued a reply on 09.11.2012 wherein she claimed that she had not entered into any agreement and that she had not received any amount as alleged.

3. Since the defendant did not come forward to perform her part of the agreement, the suit was filed seeking specific performance and also permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the property. An alternate relief to refund the advance sale consideration with interest was also sought.

4. The defendant filed a written statement claiming that she had never agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff and that she had never entered into an agreement of sale for such purpose. She also denied that she received Rs.8/- lakhs as part sale consideration. She further stated that the plaintiff was a stranger and that he had some how obtained her signatures in blank papers and had used them to fill up an agreement of sale.

5. The defendant also filed an additional written statement wherein she had stated that on 12.09.2012 her son-in-law informed that she must go over to the police station and there, under duress, she was forced to sign several papers and that those papers have been used to fill in the agreement of sale. It must be pointed out that the additional written statement had been filed by a new counsel, who had entered appearance on behalf of the defendant.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what other reliefs to the plaintiff?”

7. During trial, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, namely, the plaintiff himself as PW-1 and PW-2, Krishnamurthy, who was one of the witnesses to the agreement. On the side of the defendant, five witnesses were examined. DW-1 was the defendant, and DW3 was a witness to the agreement of sale. The plaintiff marked Exs. A-1 to A-5 which included the agreement of sale dated 12.09.2012 as Ex.A-2, the exchange of legal notices as Exs.A-3 to A-5. The defendant marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. Ex.B-1 was another copy of the agreement of sale; Ex.B-2 was a copy of the FIR and Ex.B-3 was a copy of the letter given to the Inspector of Police. Ex.X-1, copy of the Family Card was also marked.

8. On consideration of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, the learned First Additional District Judge, Tiruppur, dismissed the suit.

9. With respect to the first issue, namely, wh