The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a genuine and valid agreement for specific performance, and the burden of proof on the parties to establish the authenticity of the agreement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against the judgment and decree made in OS.No.78/2011 dated 13.08.2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirupur, Tirupur District.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

(1) The appellant in the above appeal is the plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.78/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirupur.

(2) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows.

(3) The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.78/2011 for specific performance of a Sale Agreement dated 29.07.2010 and for consequential reliefs.

(4) It is the case of the appellant that the suit property comprising of land and buildings belongs to the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 lakhs. It is the further case of the appellant that the agreement was reduced to writing and as per the Agreement dated 29.07.2010, the 1st defendant received an advance of Rs.18 lakhs and that the parties mutually agreed that the balance of sale consideration shall be paid by the plaintiff on or before 28.03.2011 and that the 1st defendant, upon receipt of the balance amount should execute the Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration. Stating that the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant was clandestinely attempting to sell the suit property in favour of third parties behind the back of plaintiff, on account of the fact that the value of the property has gone up, the plaintiff after issuing lawyer''s notice dated 20.12.2010 and issuing a public notice dated 22.12.2010, has filed the above suit for specific performance.

(5) In the plaint, the plaintiff also admitted that the reply dated 29.12.2010 was sent by the 1st defendant denying the execution of the Agreement of Sale dated 29.07.2010. Even in the reply notice, it is stated by the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant repudiated the Agreement by describing the suit Agreement dated 29.07.2010 as a fabricated document. The 1st defendant admitted borrowal of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from one Sridhar in the reply notice and execution of blank papers and blank stamp papers signed by the 1st defendant at the instance of the said Sridhar. It is contended by the 1st defendant that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and 1st defendant and the plaintiff has filed the suit by creating an Agreement as if the 1st defendant had agreed to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.25 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.18 lakhs as advance from the plaintiff. In the plaint itself, the fact that the 1st defendant has entered into a registered Agreement of Sale dated 09.11.2010 with the 2nd defendant is admitted, but it is contended that the suit Agreement is neither valid nor binding on the plaintiff. Stating that the 1st defendant having entered into the Sale Agreement on 29.07.2010, is bound to honour the Agreement by accepting the balance of sale consideration, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

(6) The suit property is described as two godowns and for convenience, the suit property may be referred to Plot Nos.27 and 28 measuring an extent of 2760 sq.ft., and 2300 sq.ft., respectively along with buildings therein.

(7) The suit was contested by the 1st defendant by filing a written statement describing the suit Agreement as a fraudulent creation using the signed blank stamp papers and blank papers in connection with the loan borrowed from one Sridhar. As it was mentioned in the reply notice, the specific case of the 1st defendant is that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and 1st defendant and that no amount was paid by plaintiff to 1st defendant as advance as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff is a total stranger as far as the 1st defendant is concerned and the