An unregistered sale agreement can be considered for proving possession and specific performance, and an agreement to sell does not confer any right, title, or interest over the property, thus not requiring compulsory registration.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 made in A.S.No.24 of 2019 on the file of Additional District Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019 made in O.S.No.293 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchengode.)

1. The unsuccessful defendants, who lost their case before the lower appellate Court as well as trial Court, have filed the present second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

The suit properties are the ancestral properties of the defendants. The respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants are relatives. The defendants entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A1) with the appellants/ defendants on 01.06.2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,05,000/- in respect of suit property and the plaintiff has also paid the sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- as an advance and the possession of the suit property was also delivered to him on that day itself agreeing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within six months from the date of receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-. Thereafter, though the plaintiff had approached the defendants several times for execution of sale deed, they were not ready to perform their agreement. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has issued notice on 24.11.2005 to the defendants and the same was returned with a postal endorsement ''refused''. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.293 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, seeking the relief of Specific performance and permanent injunction.

4. Denying all the allegations, the defendants have filed the written statement contending that the suit is false, frivolous and unsustainable both in law and also on facts. The plaintiff has to prove all the allegations averred in the plaint except those specifically admitted herein. The defendants never approached the plaintiff offering to sell the suit properties. It is false that the sale price and the advance amount were fixed by the defendants and the sale agreement, which was duly signed by the plaintiff and the defendants, was reduced into writing on 01.06.2005 and delivery of possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff. The suit property is an adjacent property to the property of the plaintiff and with a view of purchase the same, the plaintiff approached the defendants, who, in turn, refused to sell the same.

5. The defendants have also filed additional written statement contending that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.06.2005 and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. At the time of availing the loan, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to sign on certain empty stamp papers and as both the parties are relatives, the defendants have signed those blank stamp papers. The defendants had discharged the said loan during the month of September 2005. The value of the suit property in the year 2005 was about Rs.6 lakhs and there is no necessity for the defendants to sell the same for a meager sum of Rs.2,05,000/-. Defendants 2 and 3 had no right in the suit property and as the fourth defendant has a son at that time, he has right in the suit property by birth, but he was not included in the sale agreement. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary remedy and grant of said relief would put the defendants in dire straits and the suit has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1.Whether the suit sale agreement dated 1.6.2005 is true and genuine and whether it is valid?

2.Whether the plaintiff is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific perfor