The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the genuineness of the sale agreement, thus denying the relief of specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals are filed challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.173 of 2012 and O.S.No.162 of 2014.

2. O.S.No.173 of 2012 has been filed for relief of specific performance of agreement dated 27.12.1997 and O.S.No.162 of 2014 has been filed by the tenant who is said to be a tenant to the agreement holder for permanent injunction as against the defendant not to evict him except by due process of law. Both the appeals have been partly decreed. Hence, the present appeals.

3. The main issue to be decided in these appeals is with regard to the comprehensive suit for specific performance. The suit in O.S.No.162 of 2014 is depending on the decision of the O.S.No.173 of 2012 filed for enforcing the contract. Since both the appeals were tried and disposed vide a common judgment, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the appeals vide a common judgment. The parties are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the suit in O.S.No.173 of 2012 are as follows:

a. It is the case of the plaintiff that the deceased 1st defendant Radhakrishnan is the allottee of the suit house by the Tamilnadu Housing Board bearing door number M.65. The 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 27.12.1997, the deceased 1st defendant entered into a written agreement of sale with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and as per the sale agreement the sale price of the suit property was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the 1st deceased defendant as advance as a part of the sale price and as per the sale agreement, the understanding was that as soon as the Housing Board executes the sale of the suit house in favour of the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant should inform about the same to the plaintiff and the plaintiff should pay the balance sale price to the 1^st defendant and obtain a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of six months thereafter and the balance sale price of Rs.50000/- to be paid at the time of the registration of sale deed. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit property on the date of agreement as a part performance of the contract of sale.

b. Further, the plaintiff has let the suit property on rent, to one C.N. Munusamy and that the tenant is in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff is also paying the property tax for the suit property in Kadachanalur panchayat board, at times in his name and at times in the name of the deceased 1st defendant. TNEB service connection for the suit property stands in the name of the Executive Engineer, TNEB and plaintiff has been paying the electricity charges in the name of Executive Engineer TNEB and obtained receipts. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to pay the balance sale price of Rs. 50,000/- to the deceased 1st defendant. The plaintiff has spent about Rs. 3,50,000/- in the suit property by way of improvement in the year 2006 with the knowledge of the deceased 1st defendant. The plaintiff has paid the installment due to the Housing Board either by himself or through the deceased 1st defendant. On 31.12.2002 the Housing Board Salem, had issued notice to the deceased 1st defendant which was received by the plaintiff since he is in occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the Housing Board through the deceased 1st defendant and requested the deceased 1st defendant to get back the sale deed from the Housing Board as soon as possible and inform him so that the plaintiff would pay the balance of the sale price of Rs. 50,000/- and get the sale deed executed by the deceased 1st defendant.

c. The plaintiff had been enquiring the deceased 1st defendant as to whether the Housing Board has executed the sale deed in favour of the deceased 1st defendant, to which the deceased 1st defendant told the plainti