A sale agreement signed by one party is valid if it evidences mutual consent, and readiness and willingness do not require specific phrasing in the plaint.

JUDGEMENT :

The deceased 1st appellant was the defendant before the Trial Court against whom the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. The trial Court has decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the deceased 1st appellant was also dismissed by concurring with the judgment of the trial Court. The deceased 1st appellant has filed this second appeal challenging the judgement of the first Appellate Court. During the pendency of the second appeal, the 1st appellant died and hence his legal heirs have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 4.

2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. The deceased 1st defendant has entered into a sale agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs on 14.08.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,33,000/-. On the same day itself, he received an advance amount at Rs.1,00,000/- and the time for completing the sale transaction was agreed at 90 days. Despite the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed by receiving the same. On 11.09.2006 the defendant issued a notice with a false avernment to the plaintiff that he was forced to enter into a sale agreement and all other facts were not admitted by the plaintiff. When the plaintiffs tendered the remaining sale consideration, the defendant refused to receive the same. Hence, he has filed the suit for specific performance to direct the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,33,000/-.

3. The brief facts of the written statement filed by the deceased sole defendant are as follows:

The pleading of the plaintiff that the sale agreement was entered into on 14.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- after receiving the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not true. It is also false to state that 90 days have been agreed upon and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The defendant is a deaf person; by taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff has created a false sale agreement without the consent and knowledge of the deceased 1st defendant, his wife, and his daughter. The sale agreement Ex.A1 is a fabricated one. In fact, on 11.09.2006 the defendant informed the plaintiff by issuing advocate notice to get back the advance amount and give the market value of the suit property. But the plaintiff has cheated the defendant by fabricating a sale agreement for a low sale price, and he was trying to grab the suit property for a cheap price. Whenever the defendant was ready to return the advance amount, the plaintiff evaded to get back the same.

4. On the basis of the above pleading, the learned trial judge has framed the following issues:

Image Pending

5. During the course of the trial on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and P.W.2 and three documents have been marked as Ex.A1 to A3. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined as DW.1 and no document was marked.

6. After the conclusion of the trial, and on consideration of materials available on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed for. The first appeal preferred by the deceased 1st defendant also got dismissed, by confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ex.A1 sale agreement has got only one signature and has been signed by the defendant; usually in the agreement both the parties would sign and that itself would show that Ex.A1 sale agreement is a fabricated document. The contents of the sale agreement would show that there is no recital as to the origin of title for the suit property and hence it could not be a genuine one. Even the signatures of the witnesses are found to be having mere signatures, without any details as to their names and addresses. Thou