The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for registration of a sale agreement under the Registration Act, 1908, for invoking specific performance, and the significance of possession in relation to seeking benefits under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53A.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2016, made in OS.No.100 of 2014, by the III Additional District Court, Salem.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, against the judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2016, passed by the III Additional District Court, Salem, in OS.No.100 of 2014.

2. The suit was filed for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 09.11.2012 and for permanent injunction and also for declaration of the gift settlement deed, dated 29.11.2013 executed, by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant, as null and void and for costs.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the 1st Defendant had entered into a sale agreement, dated 09.11.2012, with the Plaintiff, in respect of suit property, for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and an advance of Rs.17,00,000/- was paid and possession and the documents were handed over to the Plaintiff. It was agreed that the sale should be completed within two years. Since the husband of the Plaintiff died on 19.07.2013, the sale could not be completed immediately. Taking advantage of the same, the 1st Defendant had executed a gift settlement deed, dated 29.11.2013, in favour of the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Since the 1st Defendant has been evading to complete the sale, a legal notice, dated 02.04.2014 was issued and a reply dated 09.04.2014, with false allegations, was sent. Since on 08.04.2014, the Defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff, the suit had been filed, seeking the reliefs as stated above.

4. The case of the Defendants is that the averments regarding the execution of the alleged sale agreement dated, 09.11.2012 and the receipt of advance amount are false. The entire documents relating to the suit properties were handed over to the Auditor Ramesh, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, for filing IT Returns, along with the signed blank stamp papers, which were misused. The suit sale agreement is a forged one. The Defendants, by a reply notice, had asked the Plaintiff to furnish a copy of the sale agreement dated, 09.11.2012 to send a full fledged reply, but the Plaintiff failed to do so. The Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were marked and PW.1 and PW.3 were examined. On the side of the Defendants, Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked and DW.1 was examined. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in part, thereby directing the Defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff as per the sale agreement, dated 09.11.2012, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs and granting permanent injunction as prayed for and declaring the gift settlement deed dated 29.11.2013, as null and void and dismissing the suit in respect of the relief of refund of advance amount and permanent injunction in respect of the possession. Aggrieved against the same, this Appeal Suit has been filed by the Defendants.

6. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the 1st Defendant never executed any sale agreement with the Plaintiff and that the original title deeds in respect of the suit property, along with the signed blank stamp papers, handed over for the purpose of filing IT Returns were misused. He would further contend that no sale consideration was passed on and that the suit sale agreement is an unregistered document and that the Respondent had no sufficient means to pay the advance amount and that the suit property was already divided into plots before the date of the sale agreement and in such circumstances, he would pray for dismissal of the suit. He would rely on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1996 SCC 4 526