The court affirmed that the burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it and upheld the validity of the sale agreement, reinforcing principles of specific performance in contract law.

JUDGMENT :

K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2021 passed in A.S. No.25 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional District Court, Vellore @ Ranipet, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.168 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet, Vellore.

2. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the 2^nd defendant in the above suit. The 1^st respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of contract of sale agreement and alternatively to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,75,359/- to the plaintiff by the defendants together with future interest at 18% per annum and for costs.

3. The facts leading to filing of the above suit are as follows:

3.1. The 1^st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. She entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit property for a valid consideration of Rs.7,70,000/- on 18.04.2008 to meet out her medical expenses. On the date of agreement, the 1^st defendant received a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed. Since the 1^st defendant had to undergo heart surgery, no time was stipulated for the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract to pay the balance consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and to get the sale deed in his favour. But the 1^st defendant evaded to perform her part of contract. Hence, a legal notice was issued on 25.05.2009 calling upon the 1^st defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration on or before 10.06.2009. The 1^st defendant sent a reply on 28.05.2009 with false allegations and also stated that she had sold the property to the 2^nd defendant. Both the defendants colluded together and brought out the alleged sale deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant to avoid the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and to defeat his valuable rights. Hence, the suit.

3.2. The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendants stating that, the 1^st defendant never executed the suit sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and received any amount as advance. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property only as a tenant under the defendant. The alleged agreement is a forged and created with an intention to grab the property from the defendants. The 1^st defendant has already sold the property to the 2^nd defendant in the month of January 2009 and therefore, the question of execution of any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff does not arise. The 2^nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valid consideration and without notice of the alleged fraudulent agreement dated 18.04.2008. The 2^nd defendant is not liable to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, since there is no contract between them. Hence, the sale agreement cannot be enforced as against the 2^nd defendant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based upon the materials on record, the trial court granted the decree of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, the 2^nd defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.25/2018 and the 1^st defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.14/2019. The first appellate court dismissed the above appeal suits. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.25/2018, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the 2^nd defendant.

5. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether decreeing the suit for specific performance by the courts below, witho