The court ruled that without valid proof of the agreement's execution and payment, the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance, emphasizing the importance of unimpeachable evidence in such claims.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit in respect of the relief of specific performance and granting the alternative relief, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. The defendant has filed the cross-objection challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit for the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount.

2. The parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in this appeal shall also be indicated. 

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the suit is as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. He married the plaintiff’s younger sister. Being a close relative, the defendant used to borrow money from the plaintiff for the business he is running in the name and style of “New Novo Metal Coaters” in the name of his wife Jeevarathinam. That apart, the defendant also obtained loan from Syndicate Bank, Salem towards the working capital and machinery loan by mortgaging the suit property by depositing the original title deeds with the said Bank. As the loan was not paid, the Bank has initiated SARFEASI proceedings against the defendant. The defendant has already borrowed a sum of Rs.27,50,000/- from the plaintiff and he wanted to sell the suit property admeasuring 1,100 sq.ft for a total sale consideration of Rs.39,43,500/- and the plaintiff paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendant on 29.03.2019 for repaying the loan amount to the Syndicate Bank and the sale agreement was executed on the same day. The defendant agreed to pay the loan amount and get back the original title deeds from the Bank. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,43,500/- should be paid within four months from the date of agreement and the property should be registered in the name of the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not handover the original title deeds as agreed by him and on the other hand, he was trying to alienate and encumber the suit property. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform the contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,43,500/-, but the defendant was evading to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. Hence, the suit for specific performance.

4. Admitting the relationship of the parties, the defendant has denied the borrowal of Rs.27,50,000/- from the plaintiff prior to the alleged agreement. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff’s sister Jeevarathinam was his second wife. In fact, the defendant and his wife Jeevarathinam borrowed a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- from one Kutty @ Palanikumar, who is known to his wife. At the time of said borrowal, the said Palanikumar obtained signed blank Rs.100/- stamp paper and a green sheet and thereafter, due to some misunderstanding between the defendant and his wife, they got separated and were living separately. While so, his wife has taken back the signed blank stamp papers from said Palanikumar by repaying the amount and fraudulently created the suit agreement. It is the case of the defendant that his second wife Jeevarathinam and his son also made an attempt on the life of the defendant on 09.06.2019 demanding the original deed of the property in respect of which a police complaint has also been registered in Crime No.363 of 2019. Thereafter, they have taken away the original sale deed of the suit prop