JUDGMENT :

Defendant, who suffered a decree of specific performance before the courts below, has come up with the present Second Appeal, which came to be admitted by this court on 4.3.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Whether the courts below are correct in granting the decree for specific performance of unregistered sale deed Ex.A3, when the plaintiff has not exhausted his remedy under Section 35 of the Registration Act?

(2) Whether the courts below are correct in decreeing the suit for specific performance without giving a finding as to whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as mentioned under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?

(3) Whether courts below are correct in invoking the bar under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act against the defendant, when PW1 and PW2 have deposed contrary to the recitals contained in Ex.A3 in the matter of passing of consideration?

(4) Whether the courts below are correct in decreeing the suit for specific performance when the plaintiff herself has stated about the handing over of the title deeds-Exs.A1 and A2 contrary to her pleadings?”

2. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

The suit property was purchased by one S.Vasantha, daughter of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant from one A.Mumtaj Begum under a registered sale deed dated 9.2.2001. The said Vasantha died on 31.12.2011 leaving her husband, the defendant and she had no children. The defendant had intended to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- and thereupon entered into a sale deed dated 30.5.2012 and signed on the sale deed engrossed on the stamp papers on receipt of the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- and handed over the original title deeds to the plaintiff, however, when it was presented for registration, he was suddenly missing from the scene and evaded to cooperate for registration of the sale deed when he was contacted over phone and ultimately, on 3.9.2012, he had refused to come to Registrar's office. Having come to know that the defendant is attempting to sell the suit property to somebody else, the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance.

3. The case of the defendant is as under:-

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff had no source of income or any property in her name except the family pension of Rs.7000/- per month and she was being helped by the defendant's wife for her medical treatment. Two months prior to the death of the defendant's wife, the plaintiff was residing in the house of the defendant and his wife and during that time, she was in possession of keys of the bureau and after the death of Vasantha, wife of the defendant, the plaintiff had taken away all the property documents, gold ornaments and other important things to her another daughter's house. The defendant never intended or agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and he did not receive any sale consideration. The plaintiff alongwith her another son in law Thirunavukkarasu obgained signatures of the defendant in blank papers under the guise of formalities for getting death benefits of the deceased Vasantha and using such blank documents, the plaintiff had filed the suit and hence, the suit has to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of contract?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for?

(iii) Whether the allegation that the plaintiff misused the signature obtained from defendant as sale agreement is true?

(iv) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

5. During the trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 while examining two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked four documents as Exs.A1 to A4. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as DW1 whereas, no docum