J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved over the reversal of the decree for specific performance by the First Appellate Court, the appellant has preferred the above Second Appeal.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their ranking in the Suit.

3.According to the plaintiff, the defendants are husband and wife. They were desirous of selling the suit property and the plaintiff desired to purchase the same. Both the parties orally negotiated and settled the terms and conditions on 22.11.2007 and this was confirmed by an agreement between them on the same date. The essential terms were: (i) sale price is Rs.6,00,000/-, (ii) extent 25 cents in S.F.No.255, (iii) Advance Rs.5,00,000/-, (iv) no date was fixed for executing the sale deed. The defendants derived title under sale deed dated 29.05.1998 which is the plaint document No.6. The defendants assured to produce original title deeds along with Encumbrance Certificate for 13 years and sought some time. The advance amount was paid in the presence of the witness and it was acknowledged by the defendants in the agreement itself. While the plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, as per the agreed terms and was waiting for the defendants to produce the original title deeds with Encumbrance Certificate for 13 years and then execute the sale. The defendants sought for time. Hence, the plaintiff issued a notice on 13.06.2008, which the defendants received and sent a reply on 03.07.2008 pretending as if there was no agreement and wanted a copy of the agreement. The plaintiff immediately complied with the request of the defendants by way of reply notice dated 10.07.2008 and sent a copy of the agreement. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed as per the terms of the agreement, from the date of the agreement continuously and also applied for execution of sale deed, the defendants committed breach of contract. The plaintiff got means to purchase and still ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. He has remitted almost the major portion of price and he sought for specific performance and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from executing any sale in favour of third parties.

4.The defendants denied the averments made in the plaint and in the written statement it was stated that the value of the property is more than Rs.75,00,000/- and payment of court fee is not proper and the suit is not maintainable. For the purpose of meeting agricultural obligations and for family expenses, the defendants approached the plaintiff for loan. The plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- which the defendants acknowledged the receipt on two original stamp papers of Rs.5,00,000/- each. The xerox copy of the stamp papers were handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants. The plaintiff cause a legal notice dated 13.06.2008 and the defendants were shocked to note that they were called upon to execute the sale deed. Immediately, the defendants sent an interim reply on 03.07.2008 clearly narrating that they were not aware of the sale agreement set out in the legal notice and requested xerox copies of the same for giving a detailed reply. After receipt of a xerox copy of the sale agreement, they came to know that the loan papers taken by the plaintiff was manipulated into one of sale agreement. Immediately, they sent a reply notice clearly narrating all the facts and the also manipulation made by the plaintiff in the loan document. There was no negotiation about any sale of the property on 22.11.2007 and no sale agreement was entered between the parties and it was manipulated by the plaintiff on his own accord. The agreement of sale should be specifically signed by both the parties with clear recitals about the execution of the sale deed, time for execution and conditions of sale. Whereas, this document introduced by the plaintiff does not specify any details and it was a manipulated agreement. There was n