The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of a sale agreement and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a specific performance case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin, in O.S.No.3 of 2006.)

1. This Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin, in O.S.No.3 of 2006.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The suit properties belonged to the defendants through a Will, by document No.75/1992 dated 23.09.1992. On consent, the defendants have entered into an agreement, on 21.11.2005 with the plaintiff, for selling the suit properties for a total value of Rs.6 lakhs, and on the same day, they have received a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as advance. As per the agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the remaining amount, on or before 30th day of Karthigai month. The defendants have also agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff or his men or an agent of the plaintiff. In the said agreement, Ravikumar and David Pradeep Ravikumar have signed as witnesses. Now also, the plaintiff is ready to purchase the suit properties. Thereafter, the defendants have issued a legal notice, dated 06.12.2005 to the plaintiff and the allegations mentioned in the said legal notice are false one. The plaintiff has also sent reply legal notice, dated 08.12.2005 to the defendants. Again, the defendants have issued a rejoinder notice. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

3. The brief facts of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

The claim of the suit is false. The suit properties are belonged to the defendants, as per Will, dated 23.09.1992. The defendants have not entered into any agreement, dated 21.11.2005 with the plaintiff and they have not received a sum of Rs.50,000/-,as advance. On 05.12.2005, the plaintiff, Ravikumar and David Pradeep Kumar have created the agreement and obtained the signatures of the defendants under coercion and compulsion. On 22.12.2005, the 1st defendant has sold the 1st item of the suit property to his sister. Hence, the suit liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“1.Whether it is true that the sale agreement, dated 21.11.2005 was created on the suit properties? Whether it is true that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as advance?

2.Whether the defendants are liable for specific performance?

3.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

5. In order to substantiate the case, during trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.4.

6. On conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Challenging the said Judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2008, the plaintiff has filed the present Appeal Suit before this Court.

8. Heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Ex.A.1 agreement, dated 21.11.2005 was obtained under threat and coercion. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 clearly shows that the signatures of the appellants were obtained in the blank stamp papers, subsequently, the same was created as sale agreement. P.W.2 has obtained Ex.A.3 to A.6 from the appellants and stated that he required the said documents for changing the name of appellants in the revenue records. So, that the property tax would be assessed in the name of the appellants, inspite of his Testator Arumugam Muthaliyar. Ex.B.2 and B.4 clearly established that the appellants have sent complaints to the Police Department as well as the Hon'bl