The specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property can be ordered if the plaintiff proves fulfillment of conditions and adequately demonstrates the legitimacy of the claim.

JUDGMENT

P .B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an item of immovable property is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff is the elder sister of the defendant. There was a partition in the family of the parties on 24.04.1976, in terms of which the plaint schedule property measuring 54 cents, wherein the family house as also the family temple are situated, was allotted to the share of the defendant. The defendant was not residing in the family house in the plaint schedule property before or after the partition. Instead, the plaintiff was residing in the family house all throughout, except for a short period after her marriage. The family temple in the plaint schedule property was also being looked after by the plaintiff. The defendant was enjoying credit facilities from Bharath Overseas Bank, Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the business carried on by him, and the plaint schedule property as also a property held by the husband of the plaintiff V.K.Gopinath Pillai were mortgaged for securing repayment of the credit facilities of the defendant. During 2003, the operation of credit facilities of the defendant became irregular and the bank initiated proceedings for realisation of the amounts due by proceeding against the mortgaged properties. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant was not in a position to liquidate the liability at the relevant point of time, with a view to protect the family temple as also the family house where the plaintiff was residing, at the mediation of other members in the family, the plaintiff agreed to pay to the defendant a sum of Rs.46 lakhs for liquidating his liabilities, and the defendant, in turn agreed to transfer by way of sale, the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that accordingly, she raised the said amount by way of loans from the close family members and friends and paid to the defendant on 22.02.2005 on the understanding that the defendant would, in turn, transfer the plaint schedule property to her by way of sale within a period of 5 years. It is stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that a longer period of time was fixed for transfer of the plaint schedule property in order to enable the defendant to settle other liabilities incurred by him showing the plaint schedule property as his asset. It is also stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant, however, agreed to receive back the title deed of the plaint schedule property from the bank and entrust the same with the plaintiff. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that an agreement was executed between the parties on 22.02.2005 incorporating the arrangement entered into by them. It is alleged by the plaintiff that though the defendant received back the title deed of the plaint schedule property from the bank and entrusted the same with the plaintiff, he was not transferring the plaint schedule property despite specific demands, and the suit was instituted, in the circumstances, for specific performance of the contract. The title deed of the plaint schedule property entrusted by the defendant as also the agreement for sale dated 22.02.2005 were produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint.

3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement contending, among others, that he has neither received the sum of Rs.46 lakhs mentioned in the plaint nor agreed to transfer the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant has also denied the execution of the agreement for sale dated 22.02.2005 and contended that the same is one prepared using one signed blank stamp paper entrusted by him to his elder brother K.G.Sasidharan P