The main legal point established in the judgment is that the genuineness of a sale agreement and the necessity of joining a party are crucial factors in determining entitlement to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Judge, Tiruvarur dated 22.08.2013 in O.S.No.18 of 2009 in and by which the Suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 08.12.2007 is decreed by the Trial Court.

B. The Plaintiff-s Case:

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of the lease hold interest in the suit schedule property having got the same from Arulmigu Thangamuthu Mariamman Temple by a duly registered Document No.503 of 1998 thereby having the lease right in respect of the property for a perpetual 99 years with the right to put up his own super structure for a rent of Rs.20/- per month. Thereafter, he has put up a super structure with R.C.C. Constructions and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant agreed to sell the said super structure along with the lease hold rights in the land to the plaintiff and for that purpose on 08.12.2007, an agreement for sale was entered into. As per the agreement for sale, the total sale consideration was Rs.13,00,000/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as on the date of the agreement as advance. The balance sale consideration was payable within a period of 2 years therefrom. But however, to the dismay of the plaintiff in spite of the sale agreement he came to know that the defendant was attempting to sell his property to third parties and therefore he confronted the defendant in person. Even though the defendant initially prayed for time, he continued with his attempts to alienate the suit property and hence the Suit.

C. The Defendant’s Case :

3. The case of the defendant is that the suit sale agreement is not genuine. The defendant had business transactions by way of partnership business with one V.K.K.Ramamoorthy and his wife Geetha in respect of Cable TV network and other businesses. At the time of expanding the business, when the said Ramamoorthy brought in money as capital, by way of security he had also obtained signatures of the defendant on blank stamp papers, blank papers and also on cheques. Later on, when the defendant and the said Ramamoorthy fell out and conflicts arose between them, the said Ramamoorthy had also misused the cheques and filed cases. He had set up the plaintiff to file the present Suit by handing over the blank stamp paper containing the signature of the defendant in which the suit agreement was created/concocted. The defendant did not receive any amount as advance nor did he enter into such an agreement for sale and prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

D. The issues & The Trial:

4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.02.2007?

ii) Whether time is the essence of the contract?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief?

iv) To what reliefs?”

4.1 On the said issues, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one K.Jeyavel, the attesting witness of the Suit agreement was examined as P.W.2. and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked on behalf of the defendant.

E. The Findings of the Trial Court :

5. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to consider the case of the parties and after extracting the case of the parties and the rival contentions, decided the issue in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment. The Trial Court found that the contention of the defendant that the Temple is a necessary party to the Suit is untenable because the agreement was to sell the super structure along with the lease hold rights. The Trial Court further found that the defence that the signature made in a Twenty rupees stamp paper was being misused by the plaintiff as untenable, since in the legal notices issued in Ex.B5, B8 and B9, only signature in Hundred rupees blank stamp paper is mentioned and therefore in view of the said con