JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2.The plaintiff in O.S. No. 621 of 2000 has preferred this Second Appeal, assailing the concurrent dismissal of his suit by the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, by judgment and decree dated 11.07.2005; and the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, in A.S. No. 154 of 2005, by judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013.

3.The plaintiff is the appellant and the defandant is the respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the trial court.

4.The case is brief: According to the plaintiff, a sale agreement dated 04.03.1999 was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit property at a total consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.13,000/- as advance and undertook to pay the balance Rs.2,000/- on or before 04.03.2000. When the defendant evaded execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 14.01.2000 calling upon the defendant to execute the deed. The defendant replied on 27.01.2000 containing false allegations, leading to the present suit for specific performance.

5.The defendant states that the parties are related and there is longstanding enmity. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and his associates, forcibly obtained the defendant’s thumb impression on blank stamp papers and fabricated an agreement dated 04.03.1999. It is stated that the plaintiff habitually signs documents. The defendant contends that the suit property had already been sold to one Mrs. Ranjitham, a fact well known to the plaintiff, and that the present suit is a device to grab the property.

6.At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial question of law which is reproduced verbatim here below:

“a)Whether both the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of the subsequent purchaser of the property when admittedly the suit property was sold in favour of D.W.3 much after the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff?

b)Whether the findings of both the Courts below to the effect that the defendant had executed the agreement of sale under coercion can be termed as perverse since it runs contrary to the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff apart from examining himself had also examined the scribe and attestor of the document marked as Ex.A.1?

c)Whether both the Courts were right in going into the issue of title of the defendant in a suit for specific performance and the same runs contrary to the provisions of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

d)Whether the findings rendered by both the Courts below can be termed as perverse due to improper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record?

7.Evidence on Ex.A1: The plaintiff relies on Ex.A1, the agreement dated 04.03.1999 purportedly executed by the defendant for Rs. 15,000, denies execution and consideration. To prove Ex.A1, the plaintiff examined an attesting witness and the scribe as P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is not in dispute that the defendant was in the habit of signing documents, which is evident from Ex. A3 and Ex. B2, yet Ex.A1 bears only the defendant’s thumb impression, with no satisfactory explanation for this departure from his usual practice.

8.As regards the recitals of Ex A1, its recitals state that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as a lessee; yet, contrarily in evidence, the plaintiff professed ignorance as to who was in possession of the property. The Plaintiff further claimed that the defendant owned only a 1/3rd share in the schedule property, whereas the defendant asserted ownership over the entire extent and proved that the entire extent had been sold to Mrs. Ranjitham under Ex B2 prior to the suit. These contradictions create considerable doubt about the genuineness of Ex. A1 and the circumstances under which it came into existence. Even the one- year period allowed in Ex. A1 for payment of the meagre balance