JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

1. This appeal is filed by the defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against them in the suit filed for Specific Performance and Mesne Profits.

2. The trial Court, on considering the pleadings and evidence granted the relief of Specific Performance but dismissed the prayer for Mesne Profits.

3. The brief facts of the case is that, the plaint schedule property owned by the first defendant Arokkiyaraj, S/o Anthonisamy Udaiyar. On 16.07.2009, he entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff Arokkiyaraj, S/o Amburose Udaiyar. The sale consideration of the suit property was fixed as Rs.10,67,500/- and an advance of Rs.1,55,000/- was paid on the date of sale agreement. The purchaser/plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,12,500/- within the period of six months from the date of sale agreement. The purchaser/plaintiff, when requested the vendor/first defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, the first defendant started evading. Hence, after issuing pre-suit notice dated 05.01.2010, the suit was filed filed for Specific Performance of the agreement and mesne profits.

4. In the written statement, the first defendant denied the execution of sale agreement. According to him, he borrowed Rs.1,55,000/- from the plaintiff for getting electricity service connection to his land in S.No.139/5. The plaintiff, who was working as a Foreman in the Electricity Department, promised to help him for getting service connection. Knowing his need for money, the plaintiff advanced Rs.1,55,000/-, but obtained signature in Rs.20/- blank stamp paper and few blank sheets. Making use of the said blank sheets, he had fabricated the sale agreement, as if the first defendant agreed to sell his land to him. In fact, the first defendant did not use the money borrowed for getting the electricity connection. He spent the money by wayward means and therefore, there was domestic problem in his family. Thereafter, he has settled most of his properties in favour of his minor sons appointing his wife as guardian. The said settlement deeds are duly registered on 30.11.2009. He has retained only few properties with him, rest are settled in favour of his minor sons. The same has already been informed in the reply notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, with an intention to grab the property, had fabricated the documents with the help of his known persons. After receipt of the pre-suit notice, with the help of elders, there was a panchayat in which the plaintiff demanded three times the money advance or else he will proceed with the case. Since the first defendant did not meet out his illegal demand, the suit has been filed based on the fabricated document. The plaintiff, in view of the averments made in the written statement, impleaded both the minor sons of the first defendant as defendants 2 and 3 represented by their mother/next friend. On impleading defendants 2 and 3, written statement has been filed on their behalf reiterating the contentions of the first defendant.

5. When the matter was taken up for trial, the trial Court, before examining the witnesses, re-casting the issues as below:-

(1) Whether the suit sale agreement is true, valid and binding on the parties to the agreement?

(2) Whether the suit sale agreement dated 16.07.2009 is a forged document as alleged by the defendants?

(3) Whether the first defendant had obtained a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- as loan only from the plaintiff after signing in a blank stamp paper to the value of Rs.20/- and also by signing other blank papers as contended by the defendants?

(4) Whether the plaintiff has fraudulently created suit sale agreement by utilizing the alleged blank stamp paper and other blank papers containing the signatures of the first defendant as contended by the defendants?

(5) Whether the settlement deeds said to be executed by the first defendant in favour of his