The failure to verify the title and other documents before entering into a sale agreement, and the non-registration of the agreement as required by law, can lead to the dismissal of a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgement and decree, dated 18.04.2016, made in OS.No.121 of 2011, by the Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, against the judgement and decree, dated 18.04.2016, made in OS.No.121 of 2011, by the Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.

2. The suit was filed for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 19.11.2010, failing which, for a direction for execution of the sale deed through the Court and for permanent injunction and for costs.

3. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is that the Defendant is the owner of the suit property. One Nithianandam, who was working in the Plaintiff Company, had introduced the Defendant. The Defendant had entered into a sale agreement, dated 19.11.2009, with the Plaintiff, to sell the schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.19,05,000/- and the Defendant had received an advance amount of Rs.19,00.000/- and it was agreed that at any time, on payment of the balance sale consideration, the sale should be completed. The Defendant had requested one week time to vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the Plaintiff. In the mean time, the said Nithianandam had committed misappropriation of Rs.41 lakhs in the Company of the Plaintiff and made a confession on 23.11.2009. From then, the attitude of the Defendant has completely changed and he did not come forward to perform his part of the contract, even though the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The Defendant caused a notice dated 20.12.2009, with vague allegations against the Plaintiff, alleging forgery. The Plaintiff had sent a reply notice, dated 02.01.2010 and the Defendant had sent a rejoinder notice, dated 07.01.2010. In the meanwhile, the Defendant attempted to alienate the suit property. Hence, the Plaintiff gave an objection to the concerned Sub Registrar on 30.06.2010. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2010, calling upon the Defendant to perform his part of contract and the Defendant issued a reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the Defendant, in a nutshell, as set out in the written statement, is that he neither entered into the alleged agreement of sale nor received any advance amount. The Plaintiff had given a criminal complaint against the Defendant before concerned Police and the same was registered in Crime No.1340/2009, dated 23.09.2009, under Sections 389, 403, 413, 420, 506(i) of IPC. The police arrested the Defendant and brought him to the police station. During that time, the Plaintiff obtained his signature in two blank stamp papers by coercion. He had issued a notice, dated 20.12.2009 and the Superintendent of Police to return the above said stamp papers. The alleged sale agreement is a forged one. The Plaintiff has not stated anything about the sale agreement dated 19.11.2009, in his reply notice dated 02.01.2010. The possession of the suit property is not handed over to the Plaintiff and he is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Hence, the suit is to be dismissed.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-

1. Whether the suit agreement dated 19.11.2009 is genuine and valid and executed for sale transaction?

2. Whether the sale agreement is forged by the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant?

3. Whether the Plaintiff was given constructive possession of suit properties?

4. Whether the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract against the Defendant?

6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

7. To w