The court reaffirmed that the plaintiff must prove execution and enforceability of agreements in specific performance suits, with due regard to burden of proof and document legitimacy.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYKUMAR, J.

1. The present first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance challenging the dismissal of her suit.

(A)Pleadings before the trial Court

2.As per the plaint averments, the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant's mother is alleged to have borrowed a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from the plaintiff and said to have executed various loan documents evidencing the borrowing. The defendant's mother could not repay the said loan and due to the mediation effected, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property. The entire sale consideration has been paid.

3.The plaintiff has contended that no time limit has been fixed in the sale agreement. As and when the plaintiff calls upon the defendant to execute the sale agreement, the defendant has to execute the same. It is further contended that the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to execute the sale deed from 15.08.2015 onwards. As per the terms of the agreement, a reasonable period has been agreed upon between the parties and therefore, the present suit is filed in time.

4.It is further contended in the plaint that the defendant having been the beneficiary of the loan borrowed by her mother and having undertaken to discharge the loan by executing sale of the property, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit though the defendant is a stranger to consideration. It is further contended that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract at all relevant point of time and continues to remain as such.

5.The defendant has filed a written statement contending that she is not aware of the alleged borrowings made by her mother. It is further contended that she was never a beneficiary of the loan said to have borrowed by her mother. The defendant had contended that the alleged agreement is a forged document and it should be sent to the expert opinion for examining her signature.

6.According to the defendant, the suit schedule property was purchased out of her own funds and she had constructed a house in the said property by availing the housing loan from HDFC Bank. She has no reason or paucity of funds to alienate the suit schedule property.

7.The defendant has further contended that her mother used to get herself involved in various nefarious activities and hence she had remained absconding for so many years. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendant's mother are housewives. It is not known for what reason such a huge amount was given as a loan to the defendant's mother. According to the defendant, the plaintiff may have colluded with the defendant's mother to usurp the self acquired property of the defendant. According to the defendant, she is residing in another State and taking advantage of her absence in the Town, a criminal conspiracy has been hatched to usurp her property. The defendant further submits that she intends to initiate criminal prosecution for forging the suit sale agreement.

8.On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 and the plaintiff's sister has been examined as P.W.2 who had attested Ex.A1 sale agreement. Ex.A1 sale agreement dated 08.11.2014 is the only the document marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant, the defendant has examined herself as D.W.1. She has marked Ex.B.1 photograph and Ex.B2, a provisional bank statement issued by the HDFC Bank for the period covering 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.

(B)Findings of the trial Court

9.The trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit on the following grounds:-

a)The plaintiff though contends that the defendant's mother had borrowed a s