The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit for Specific Performance and granting alternative relief, the plaintiff filed the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.9 of 2022, whereas the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.8 of 2022 was filed by the defendant, challenging the decree and judgment granting alternative relief of refund of the alleged sale advance of Rs.20,00,000/-.

2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and the parties are one and the same, these Appeal Suits are disposed of in a common judgment. For the sake of convenient, the parties are described, as per their status and ranking in the trial Court.

3.Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case is as follows:-

The suit property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant the late T.V.Srinivasalu Naidu. He died on 07.10.1991 leaving behind his wife Smt.Chinnammal and six children namely, Dhanalakshmi, Devaki, Geetha, Kala, Smt.Raniammal (defendant) and Smt.D.Shanthi (plaintiff). For the legal heirs above, each is entitled to a share. The defendant, to meet out some of her urgent financial needs and also to settle her sundry loan dues, has decided to sell her 1/7^th undivided share at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent and total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.24,60,000/- for an extent of 2.46 acre of agricultural land and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale and executed the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 03.03.2010 and she received an advance of Rs.20,00,000/-. It was agreed by the parties that the sale should be completed within a period of four months. Though time is not the essence of the contract as per the terms of the agreement, even before the agreement period of four months, the plaintiff approached the defendant during the last week of June 2010 with the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- and requested the defendant to receive the balance sale price and to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit property, as agreed, in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant citing some personal reasons informed the plaintiff that she will receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- after two weeks and execute and register the sale deed. During the second week of July 2010, the plaintiff again approached the defendant with the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/-. However, the defendant upon one pretext or another, postponed the receipt of the balance sale price. Finally, the defendant informed the plaintiff that her husband and son were objecting to the sale of the suit property and subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had attempted to sell the property. Hence, legal notice was issued to the defendant on 25.07.2010. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the property. Hence, the suit was filed for Specific Performance and for Permanent Injunction.

4. It is the contention of the defendant that except admitted the relationship between them, the defendant never executed any sale agreement. The sale agreement was fabricated and forged by the plaintiff. It is also the contention of the defendant that the defendant’s mother Tmt.Chinnammal had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 22.02.2010 in favour of the defendant’s son Mr.P.Sampath and thereby th settled 1.05 acres of land being her undivided 1/7 share in the properties referred as above. The plaintiff and the other four sisters are very much aggrieved by the act of the mother's defendant and started accusing the defendant stating that she had prevailed upon the mother and managed to obtain the settlement deed dated 22.02.2010 in the name of his son. As a result, the relationship between the defendant and her sisters including the plaintiff got strained. With a view to invalidate the settlement deed dated 22.02.2010, the plaintiff and her four sisters harassed the mother and forced her to execute a Cancellation Deed