Sale agreements must comply with statutory requirements, including proper execution and stamping; failure to demonstrate consensus or readiness negates claims for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

The present second appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the defendant in the suit against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2019 passed in the Appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.08.2005, passed in the suit in O.S.No.640 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk at Madurai.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent herein and the defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The brief facts stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff and the defendant are brother and sister. The suit property belongs to the defendant sister. The defendant has agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also agreed to purchase the same. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.35,000/- and it has also been reduced into writing on 06.02.1994. The defendant had received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance on 06.02.1994 and the balance Rs.20,000/- has to be paid within three months and the defendant has to execute sale deed within three months from the date of agreement. The plaintiff has also paid Rs.10,000/- another part of sale agreement on 10.02.1994 and the necessary endorsement was made in the agreement itself. Subsequently, the plaintiff has purchased necessary stamp papers on 28.03.1994 for the purpose of writing the sale deed. The plaintiff has sent a letter dated 04.04.1994 intimating the purchase of stamp papers and requesting the defendant to come to Alanganallur and execute sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration. But the defendant failed to appear nor sent any reply. The plaintiff has gone to Ayyapatty and requested the defendant to come and execute the sale deed but there was no response from the defendant side. Hence, the plaintiff sent another letter, dated 02.05.1994, to come to Alanganallur Sub Registrar Office and execute the sale deed. Again, there was no response from the defendant. Then, the plaintiff has sent a lawyer notice, dated 21.07.1994 and the defendant refused to receive the same returned the lawyer notice. Though all these steps taken by the plaintiff, the defendant has assured to come and execute the sale deed in the presence of friends and relatives but she has not turned up nor chosen to reply. The plaintiff has sent a telegram on 03.08.1994 to the defendant. The defendant has sent a reply denying the execution of sale agreement and stated the defendant had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from one Muniyandi, Kovilpatty on 17.11.1993 and delivered the possession of the suit property to the said Muniyandi allowing him to enjoy the same in lieu of interest. The said Muniyandi has also made over the pro note, dated 17.11.1993, in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the principal amount of Rs.5,000/-, delivered the possession of the property to the plaintiff on 05.10.1994 itself. The dispute has also been referred to the Sub Inspector of Police, Alanganallur. The defendant has sent a lawyer notice, dated 04.10.1994, to the plaintiff and also sent the notice to the Sub Inspector of Police denying the execution of sale agreement. The very existence of sale agreement was denied and requested the Sub Inspector not to take action against the defendant as the dispute is in civil nature. T