The plaintiff must establish the validity and genuineness of the agreement of sale, possession of the property, and readiness and willingness to perform the contract in a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer:- Appeal Suits filed under Or.41 R.1 r/w Sec. 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in O.S.Nos.78 and 539 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)

Common Judgment:

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The common factor in both these first appeals is an alleged agreement of sale dated 30.08.2006. It is alleged by the plaintiff in O.S.No.539 of 2007 before the District Judge, Coimbatore that she had entered into an agreement of sale on 30.08.2006 to purchase the suit property viz., measuring an extent of 4 Acres and 50 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.99,00,000/-.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.539 of 2007 that she had paid an advance of Rs.25,00,000/- on the date of the agreement of sale and that three months time was fixed for completing the sale transaction. It is her further case that on 19.09.2006 a further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by her in cash and the same was received by the defendant and that the defendant acknowledged the same, by making an endorsement on the reverse of the first page of the sale agreement and the parties agreed to extend the time by a further period of three months. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on the very next day i.e., 20.09.2006 a further sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid by her by way of cheque to the defendant. It is also alleged that in October 2006, the plaintiff was put in possession in the suit property. As the defendant did not come forward to honour the agreement of sale, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a lawyer''s notice on 09.01.2007.

3. The defendant issued a reply notice on 23.01.2007 denying the very execution of the agreement of sale. It is also stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that the defendant with ulterior motives and suppressing material facts filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore for a declaration that the sale agreement dated 30.08.2006 is void, unenforceable, inoperative and invalid and for a consequential permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiff herein from disturbing or interfering with his peaceful possession. In this backdrop, the said O.S.No. 539 of 2007 came to be filed seeking a relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.08.2006.

4. Before getting into the defence set up by the defendant, it would be relevant to extract briefly the pleadings in the earlier suit viz., O.S.No.78 of 2007. In the said suit, the role is reversed. The owner of the property i.e., the alleged vendor filed the said suit alleging that she never entered into any agreement of sale with the defendant and that she never received any amounts as advances as alleged by the defendant and that only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was received by her as a loan facility on 20.09.2006. It is the further case of the plaintiff in the said suit that at the time of availing the said loan of Rs.15,00,000/-, the plaintiff and her husband signed in blank papers and bond papers, both on the front and back sides of several papers, separately and also jointly and that these papers and bond papers have been misused to bring about the alleged agreement of sale. It is also contended that the husband of the plaintiff signed only as a guarantor. On receipt of the notice dated 09.01.2007, from the defendant, the plaintiff was shocked to be put on notice about a bilateral agreement of sale as if the plaintiff had agreed to sell her property for a consideration of Rs.99,00,000/- and that advances were also made in pursuance of the said agreement of sale. The plaintiff also contended that there is no question of willingness and readiness coming into play at al1 since the transaction was nothing but a loan transaction, that too only for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. The plaintiff ultimately prayed for a relief of declaration to set at nought the alleged agreement of sale about which