IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that under the Indian Evidence Act, the provisos to Section 92 allow for the use of oral evidence to contradict a document, and establishing readiness and willingness is crucial for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2017 made in A.S. No.3 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Salem confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2015 made in O.S. No.183 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem.)

1. The plaintiffs who suffered concurrently before the Courts below in a suit for specific performance are the appellants herein.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The material facts that are necessary for deciding the above Second Appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs' claim is that he had entered into an agreement of sale with one Ramayammal and her sons, on 25.11.1997, for purchasing 1.3 acres of land, for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, six months was fixed for completing the transaction and the plaintiffs paid an advance of Rs.1,30,000/- on the date of the sale agreement. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in and by an endorsement dated 30.04.1998, receipt of a further sum of Rs.35,000/- was acknowledged by the defendants and further the time for completion was extended by a further 32 months.

5. According to the plaintiffs again on 30.12.2000, a further sum of Rs.18,000/- was paid and the time was extended by further six months. A notice dated 01.06.2004 was issued to the defendant and the notice sent to Ramayammal was returned with the endorsement ‘Dead’. The second defendant refused to receive the notice. The suit was therefore, instituted seeking the relief of specific performance and also a permanent injunction.

6. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that they have received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff after signing a blank stamp paper. It is also contended that the second defendant was deaf and dumb and his signature was also obtained without his knowledge and further, the agreement was fabricated and the defendants never intended to sell the property. In fact, Ramayammal had bequeathed the property to her grandson, Gunasekaran under a registered deed dated 02.02.1998. The defendants sought for dismissal of this suit on these grounds.

7. The trial Court dismissed the suit finding that Ex.A1, sale agreement was not true and genuine and that the defence pleaded by the defendants that it was only a loan transaction was found to be true. The trial Court also found that the suit was bad for non joinder of the grandson Gunasekaran, who became entitled to the suit property under the registered Will executed by Ramayammal.

8. On appeal, the First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

9. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below the above Second Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs.

10. On 13.04.2018, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

'(i) Whether the suit agreement is a registered document and the defendants have not questioned the registration, whether a defence can be taken a defence, that the document is fabricated?

(ii) When there is no issue regarding readiness and willingness on the part of the appellants to perform their part of the suit agreement, whether can any finding can be rendered against the appellant, particularly when 87% of the sale consideration has been paid'

11. I have heard Mrs.K.Ponmani for Mrs Zeenath Begum, learned counsel for appellants and Mr.V.C.Janardhanan, learned counsel for Mr.C.Prabakaran, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3

12. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the defendants having admitted the signatures, were bound by the agreement and atleast when Ex.A4, pre-suit notice was issued, the defendants ought to have sent a reply, and in fact, the second defendant refused to receive the notice and merely a sum of Rs.17,000/- was due and payable by the p