The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, and the burden lies on the defendant to prove coercion or lack of proper agreement when a registered document exists.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff, whose suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale has been dismissed by the Trial Court, is the appellant.

2. I have heard Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite the respondent having entered appearance by way of caveat and several opportunities being granted for the appearance of the respondent, none showing up, I proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. PLEADINGS:

(a) Plaint in brief:

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, the owner of the suit property on 18.12.2014, for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-. The plaintiff has paid an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- and he was ready to pay the balance Rs.6,00,000/-. The defendant demanded further advance of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet family expenses and the plaintiff also obliged by making payment of the same on 05.01.2025 and at that point of time, the original documents of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff. Though the defendant promised to execute the sale deed within a week, the defendant has thereafter avoided completion of the sale transaction. The defendant in fact, gave a police complaint against the plaintiff as if the plaintiff is threatening the defendant for registration of the property. However, the said police complaint was closed and with no other option, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for specific performance.

(b) Written Statement in Brief:

The defendant never entered into any agreement of sale with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband are doing money lending business and they are in the habit of lending money to gullible and innocent property owners by charging exorbitant interest and obtaining signatures of the allottees of shops in Koyambedu Market Complex on Non-Judicial Stamp papers. It is their usual practice of fabricating documents and thereafter, blackmail the allottees to sell their valuable properties at throw way prices. The defendant did not have any dealings with the plaintiff and she was not aware of the contents of the agreement. The agreement was not willingly signed and executed by her and there was no passing of consideration under the sale agreement dated 18.12.2014. The property is worth more than Rs.40,00,000/- and the sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- did not even reflect the then prevailing market value. The defendant executed usufructuory mortgage with one Murugesan for Rs.40,00,000/- and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the owner of the property would agree to sell the said property for throw away price of Rs.16,00,000/-. The plaintiff never made any demand to execute the sale deed during the entire two years period. The plaintiff and her husband have already received Rs.17,13,000/- from the defendant which has been recorded in the account book maintained by the plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff’s husband has issued lawyer’s notices dated 20.03.2013 and 21.04.2017 which would clearly establish only a loan transaction between the parties and not a sale agreement. Even the loan transaction was settled with the intervention of the office bearers of Anna Fruit Merchant Association. Only in view of the plaintiff’s husband forcibly removing the defendant from the shop on 03.06.2017, the defendant lodged a police complaint, for which a CSR was issued on 19.06.2017. The agreement of sale, which is projected in the suit was obtained by coercion and compulsion and it is not valid or enforceable in law and it was not acted upon. The defendant therefore pray for dismissal of the suit.

(c) Issues:-

The Trial Court upon