JUDGMENT :

Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance, the unsuccessful defendant has filed the instant appeal suit.

2. Ms.Subha, Scientific Officer in the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 series was marked through her. CMP.No.3673 of 2022 is ordered and the original document of sale deed dated 18.02.2010 in Doc.No.1099 of 2010 registered with the SRO, Vaniyambadi is marked as Ex.B7.

3. The parties are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Brief background in filing this appeal are as follows:-

4.a. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 04.10.2011, the defendant and her sister A.Athika Firdos jointly executed an agreement of sale of properties belonging to them in schedule A and B in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to sell the said property at the rate of Rs.1350/- per sq.ft., for a total sum of Rs.54,02,700/-. On the date of sale agreement, the defendant and her sister received an advance of Rs. 25,80,000/- from the plaintiffs towards the sale transaction of property of the defendant and her sister. Again on 12.10.2011, the defendant and her sister received further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiffs towards the said sale consideration and they had delivered possession of schedule mentioned property belonging to the defendant and her sister. The plaintiffs accepted the possession of said properties as part performance of agreement of sale. Further, the defendant and her sister extended the time for the said agreement till 31.01.2012. Subsequently, the defendant's sister K.Athika Firdoz sold her property in schedule “A” on 3.01.2012 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff as per the sale agreement. So far as the defendant's sister is concerned, she performed her part of contract fully in respect of her property in schedule “A”. Regarding the property of “B” schedule belonging to the defendant, the plaintiffs from the date of sale agreement and still are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and the plaintiffs on many occasions approached the defendant for payment of the agreed amount, but the defendant has been neglecting to perform her part of contract. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant and hence, the suit.

4.b. The defendant filed a written statement denying the entire agreement. It was denied that defendant and her sister entered the agreement on 04.10.2011 and also receipt of the advance sale consideration. It was denied that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform the contract. According to the defendant, an agreement was forged to knock out the properties. The defendant had already filed a suit on 18.01.2012 in O.S.No.13 of 2012 as against the plaintiff and it was contended that the signature of the defendant is forged. It was also denied about the handing over of the possession to the plaintiff. Hence, disputed the suit.

4.c. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-

1) Whether the defendant and her sister K.Athika Fridos had jointly executed the suit sale agreement dated 04.10.2011 in favour of plaintiffs for their A and B schedule properties at the rate of Rs.1350/-Sq.ft.,for total from Rs. 54,02,700/-?

2) Whether the defendant and her sister K.Athika Fridos received sale advance of Rs.25,80,000/- on 4.10.2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.10.2011 respectively from plaintiffs?

3) Whether the plaintiff were put on possession of suit A and B schedule property on 12.10.2011 towards the part performance of contract of sale agreement?

4) Whether the suit sale agreement was forged one as alleged by the defendant?

5) Whether the defendant's sister K.Athika Fridos sold her property of A schedule property on 13.1.2012 to the plaintiff as per sale agreement price of Rs.1350/- Sq.ft., in accordance with law or it was forcefully obtained from her by the plaintiff?

6) Whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their