The court ruled that doubts surrounding the authenticity of a Sale Agreement preclude the granting of specific performance, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to prove the agreement's validity.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated August 23, 2018 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2014 by the Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 10, 2012 passed in O.S.No.130 of 2008 by the Subordinate Court, Arani at Tiruvannamalai District was reversed.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 23, 2018 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2014 by the 'Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 10, 2012 passed in O.S.No.130 of 2008 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Arani at Tiruvannamalai District' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The Suit Property belongs to first defendant vide Sale Deed dated April 19, 2002. The second defendant is first defendant’s son.

The plaintiff and the defendants entered into Sale Agreement dated October 6, 2008, whereby the defendants agreed to sell the Suit Property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.4,60,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the remaining amount within the period of performance, which was fixed at three months i.e., on or before January 5, 2009, and upon such payment, the defendants had to execute Sale Deed in respect of Suit Property in favour of plaintiff. Defendant handed over the original of the Sale Deed dated April 19, 2002, registered Partition Release Deed dated April 22, 2003 executed by first defendant’s sister, and also the possession of Suit Property to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining balance sale consideration, the defendants were always evasive in executing Sale Deed. Moreover, the defendants are trying to sell the Suit Property to third parties. Hence the Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

CASE OF DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2

4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the plaint averments. They deny the Suit Sale Agreement as false and fabricated. They contend that the original Sale Deed dated April 19, 2002 and the registered Partition Release Deed dated April 22, 2003 executed by first defendant’s sister were pledged with one Kasimalli Naidu, and the plaintiff has taken them under his custody from the said Kasimalli Naidu illegally without defendants’ permission. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the Suit.

CASE OF DEFENDANT NO.3

5. The third defendant filed written statement stating that permanent injunction against statutory authorities cannot be granted and that the third defendant is an not a necessary party to the Suit. Accordingly, third defendant prayed to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT

6. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.3 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 was marked.

7. After completion of trial and hearing both sides, the Trial Court partly allowed the Suit.

FIRST APPELLATE COURT

8. Feeling aggrieved by the Trial Court's Judgement and Decree, the defendants 1 & 2 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, allowed the appeal setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Suit dated December 10, 2012 passed in O.S.No.130 of 2008 by the Trial Court.

SECOND APPEAL

9. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal, which was admitted on November 27, 2018 on the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit for Specific Per