The appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the sale agreement and his continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, resulting in the dismissal of the specific performance suit.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Thuoothukudi, seeking for specific performance. After the trial, the said suit was dismissed on 31.07.2014. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint by the appellant before the trial Court are that the appellant was doing real estate business and also running a hotel in Thoothukudi. The suit property originally belonged to one Joseph Maria Pravi Roche. On 15.09.1993, he executed a registered Will in favour of his daughter, namely, Miss. Maria Prema Roche, who was spinster. The said Joseph Maria Pravi Roche died on 02.08.1996. After his demise, his daughter was enjoying the property. Thereafter, she executed a sale agreement in favour of the appellant on 22.11.2007 for valuable consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs only). She received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as advance and subsequently, on 04.03.2008, she received a sum of Rs.4,13,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand only) and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 27.05.2008. She totally received a sum of Rs.9,13,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand only) as part consideration. The said payments were also acknowledged by the vendor/Maria Prema Roche in the agreement itself. She also handed over the copies of the original title deeds to the appellant. In the meanwhile, she died intestate on 17.03.2009. Since she was a spinster, her sister/the respondent herein/defendant is only her legal heir. Except the respondent, no other legal heir is available to the vendor of the appellant. After demise of the vendor, the appellant approached the respondent herein to complete the sale deed and he was also ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since the respondent was evading to execute the sale deed, the appellant sent a legal notice to her on 22.10.2010. The said notice was duly received by the respondent on 23.10.2010. But, she did not send any reply and also she did not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. As the legal heir of the vendor, the respondent is liable to execute the sale deed based on the agreement executed by her deceased sister Maria Prema Roche. Since the respondent did not come forward to execute the sale deed and perform her sister’s contract, the appellant was constrained to file the present suit.

3. The brief facts of the written statement filed by the respondent herein before the trial Court are as follows:

3.1 The appellant had never approached the respondent prior to sending the pre-suit notice dated 22.10.2010. In fact, though her sister died on 17.03.2009, till 22.10.2010, the appellant had never approached the respondent. As a matter of fact, for the first time, the appellant approached the respondent only through the legal notice dated 22.10.2010 and the same was received by the respondent on 23.10.20100 and the same was also duly replied by the respondent on 27.10.2010 and that was also received by the learned counsel for the appellant on 01.11.2010. In fact, in the reply notice, the respondent demanded the copies of the documents set up by the appellant in his notice to enable the respondent to make a detailed reply, but the appellant did not send any documents as sought for by the respondent. The said facts were suppressed by the appellant and also he made a false allegation in the suit. Therefore, the respondent got genuine duty to prove that the appellant forged the documents. The appellant has also not deposited the balance sale consideration before the Court at the time of filing the suit. If at all, the appellant was bona fide agreement holder, he could have deposited the balance amount at the time of filing the suit itself. The respondent also denied the alleged agreement said to h