The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit property must be clearly identified and have specific boundary details in the agreement for the contract to be enforceable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2017 made in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)

R. Kalaimathi, J.

Challenge is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.79 of 2012 dated 26.04.2017 on the file of III Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

2. The suit was filed for specific performance relating to the suit sale agreement dated 28.08.2011 or in the alternate, for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,28,127/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.5,00,000/- being the advance amount paid to the defendants from the date of suit till the date of realisation, besides a charge decree over the suit property.

3. The Trial Court has decreed the suit, directed the defendants to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as per the sale agreement dated 28.08.2011 and to deliver possession of the suit property, after receiving the balance sale price, granting two months time for registering the sale deed. Aggrieved of the same, defendants are on appeal.

4. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property belonged to one Tr.E.T.Ramasamy, husband of the 1st defendant and father of the defendants No.2 and 3, as per the sale deed dated 17.09.2003. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement of sale of suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.26,25,000/- (Rs.3,75,000/- per cent). Time was fixed at 6 months and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-, at the time of execution of sale agreement. On 04.09.2011, he paid advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and endorsement to that effect is made on the second page of sale agreement. The plaintiff further claims that since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, he caused to issue a legal notice on 17.02.2012. Despite the receipt of notice, the defendants did not respond to his notice. The plaintiff claims that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit is well withing the limitation.

5. Contending contra, the defendants deny the contents of the plaint and claim that only after the receipt of lawyer notice dated 17.02.2012, the defendants came to know about the alleged sale agreement dated 28.11.2011 entered with the plaintiff. According to the 1st defendant, at the time of borrowing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, the plaintiff obtained signatures in the blank papers from her which were utilised to forge the present sale agreement.

6. At trial, the sole plaintiff/Kanagarajan and one Rangasamy S/o. Govindhappa Gowder, who is the attesting witness to suit sale agreement have been examined as PW.1 & PW.2. Ex.A1 to A12 have been marked. Suit sale agreement dated 28.08.2011 – Ex.A2, office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants - Ex.A3, payment endorsement made in the Ex.A2 – Ex.A9, copy of the complaint lodged by the 1st defendant with Sirumugai Police Station against the plaintiff and the connected CSR Viz., Ex.A11 & Ex.A12. The 1st defendant Tmt.Rajathi and her supporting witness one Tr.Palanisamy were examined as DW1 & DW2. Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 have been marked.

7. The trial Court has framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the suit sale agreement is an outcome of fraud and forgery as claimed by the defendants?

ii. Whether the suit sale agreement is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

iii. Whether a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as advance amount?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance as claimed?

v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the alternate relief as claimed?

vi. For what other reliefs are entitled for?

8. The execution of the suit sale agreement was in a stri