JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2016 in O.S. No. 21 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Salem.

1. The Appeal Suit on hand instituted against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2016 passed in O.S. No. 21 of 2011.

2. The defendant is the appellant and the respondent instituted a Suit for specific performance. The plaint averments state that on 02.08.2010, one Late Mr. R. Subramaniam, husband of the defendant had entered into a contract of sale with the plaintiff in respect of the Suit Property and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 10,00,000/- and an advance of Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid on the same day. Time for execution was fixed as six months. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract and she has got the balance amount ready with her. The plaintiff made several demands and the Late Mr. R. Subramaniam husband of the defendant had not executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, he expired on 26.09.2010. The defendant is a widow of Late Mr. R. Subramaniam. When the plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed in her capacity as the sole legal heir of Late Mr. R. Subramaniam, she had refused to execute the sale deed and thus, the plaintiff issued a notice and thereafter, instituted a Suit for specific performance.

3. The defendants denied the avernments in the plaint by filing a written statement, which state that the Suit was instituted based on the fabricated agreement for sale, which was allegedly executed by the deceased husband of the defendant on 02.08.2010. There is no agreement entered into between the defendant's husband and the plaintiff and there was no necessity for the family of the defendant to sell the property during the relevant point of time. The husband of the defendant died on 26.09.2010. All other averments in the plaint were specifically denied by the defendant in the written statement. It is further stated in the written statement that the Suit Schedule Property was worth more than Rs. 30,00,000/- and there was no necessity for the deceased husband of the defendant to enter into an agreement for a meagre sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the sell the Suit Schedule Property. The Signature contained in the agreement is not that of the husband of the defendant. The notice issued by the plaintiff was properly replied. The defendant is having no issue, hence with an idea to cheat the defendant and to grab the property the agreement has been created by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is none other than the sister of the defendant's husband. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance.

4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court formulated the following issues:

1. Whether the defendants' husband Late R. Subramaniam had entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 02.08.2010 in respect of the suit property?

2. Whether the sale agreement dated 02.08.2010 is a forged documents?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance or return of advance amount as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

5. To what other relief if any the plaintiff is entitled? 5. On the side of the plaintiff, PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked.

6. With reference to the issue Nos. 1 and 2, the Trial Court considered the agreement on sale i.e. Ex.A1 document and further considered the fact that the husband of the defendant, who executed the sale agreement died on 26.09.2010. However, the Trial Court found that the defendant had not examined the suit sale agreement and had taken a stand that the sale agreement was not executed by her husband Late