The burden of proof shifts to the party admitting the signature in a sale agreement to disprove its genuineness, and inconsistency in defense and lack of clean hands can lead to the dismissal of an appeal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Order XLI, Rule 1 and Sections 96 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree and Judgment dated 23.02.2012 made in O.S.No.55 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.)

1. The respondent / plaintiff has filed O.S.No.55 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul for specific performance and permanent injunction, wherein the appellant is the defendant.

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

The suit property belongs to the defendant. The defendant had entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 05.02.2010 for total sale consideration of Rs.20,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only). Out of which, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) as advance on the same day itself. It was agreed that after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff within a period of three months, the sale deed should be executed and registered. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Though the plaintiff has approached the defendant, the defendant has delayed to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has sent a notice on 27.03.2010. However, the said notice was unserved. Therefore, the plaintiff sent another notice on 15.04.2010. Though the same was acknowledged by the wife of the defendant on 16.04.2010, the defendant did not respond the same. Later, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is trying to sell the property to third party. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

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

The defendant has denied the execution of the sale agreement. The suit property belonged to the defendant and the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand Only) from the plaintiff through cheques on various occasions. As security for the said loan, the plaintiff has obtained the signature of the defendant in plain white sheet and plain unfilled stamp papers. The defendant has been paying interest for the said loan at Rs.1/- per month for Rs.100/-. Since the defendant could not repay the loan amount, the plaintiff has filed the suit using the blank stamp papers. Further, there is no need for the defendant to sell the suit property and he has not received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

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

“1. Whether the sale agreement Ex.A.1 is true?;

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?;

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? And

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?.

5. In order to substantiate the case, during the trial on the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.10. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.

6. On conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court has decreed the suit, by its judgment and decreed dated 23.02.2012.

7. Challenging the said judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012, the defendant has filed the present Appeal Suit before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has never entered into the sale agreement with the respondent for selling the suit property. There is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent in respect of selling the property. The appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- on various dates through cheques from the respondent and he repaid interes