The Court upheld the trial Court's decision to grant relief based on the appellant's admission, demonstrating the importance of pleadings and evidence in determining the scope of relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, dated 24.10.2017 made in O.S.No. 78 of 2008.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, dated 24.10.2017 made in O.S.No.78 of 2008.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.78 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni. The appellant is the defendant in the said suit. The respondent has filed a suit against the appellant for the relief of specific performance and the said suit was dismissed. However, the trial Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of receipt of the said amount under Ex.A1 till the filing of the suit and 9% interest p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and 6% interest p.a from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Though aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant has filed the present appeal, however, the respondent/plaintiff has not filed either an appeal or the cross-objection.

3. Brief facts to the case of the respondent/plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that the appellant/defendant is the owner of the suit properties. She entered into an agreement to sell the properties to the plaintiff by means of a sale agreement, dated 05.01.2008. The sale price was fixed as Rs. 13,05,350/- and the defendant received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff as advance. From the date of agreement, the plaintiff was insisting the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit properties after getting the balance sale consideration. But the defendant has evading to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice, dated 29.04.2008 to the defendant calling upon her to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, dated 05.01.2008. Thereafter, the defendant issued a notice, dated 02.05.2008 by concealing all the facts with false allegations. The recitals of the notice would reflect that the defendant refused to execute the sale deed and expecting more money from the plaintiff. The defendant has admitted the execution of sale agreement, dated 05.01.2008 in her notice. The notice was suitably replied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a company and also an income tax assesse. The cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- paid as advance was only from the company account. The theory stated in the notice of the defendant was imaginary. The plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the properties from the date of sale agreement, dated 05.01.2008 after paying the balance sale consideration, but the defendant evading to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit for specific performance has been filed.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief as prayed for. All the allegations stated in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted in the written statement are all denied by the defendant and they are all false. The plaintiff is liable to prove all the facts stated in the plaint. It is true that the defendant is the owner of the suit property. But it is denied that on 05.01.2008 she executed a sale deed to sell the suit property for Rs. 13,05,350/- and received an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant to discharge her debts, approached Mrs.S.Gnaneswari and Mr.S.Reghunathan, who are her close relatives for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, they gave Rs.5,00,000/- as a hand loan. She executed a sale agreement, dated 05.01.2008 for security purpose since Mrs.S.Gnaneswari and Mr.S.Reghunathan are her close relatives. They also received the title deeds of suit properties towards security. On 03.04.2008, the de