J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2008, before the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for specific performance.

2. The trial Court after trial, decreed the suit as prayed for.

Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant has filed this appeal.

3. Brief facts to the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant under a registered Will, dated 05.05.1987 and he is possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff herein. Hence, they have entered into a sale agreement dated 26.11.2007 and sale consideration was fixed at Rs.13,65,000/- and accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance and they also agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,65,000/- on or before 26.12.2007 and to execute the sale deed on such payment. They have also agreed that if there is any encumbrance over the suit schedule property the defendant has to rectify the same. After the sale agreement, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from one Sivagnanam and for security purpose the defendant had executed a mortgage deed in favour of him. When the same was questioned by the plaintiff, the defendant has accepted the same. However, they have also agreed to conclude the sale as per the sale agreement entered between them. Subsequently, the defendant has received a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- from the plaintiff to clear his debts regarding mortgage and other expenditures and has also made an endorsement to that effect in the sale agreement. Since the defendant has not redeemed the said mortgage, the plaintiff was unable to get the sale deed executed on or before 26.12.2007. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per the sale agreement. Out of total sale consideration of Rs. 13,65,000/- the plaintiff has already paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- and the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to redeem the mortgage by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- and to get the sale deed executed in favour of him. Hence, the defendant has sent a notice with false allegations to the plaintiff and to the higher police officials. The plaintiff has also sent a reply to the said notice on 06.02.2008. The sale agreement entered between them was still subsisting. The plaintiff has denied the defence of defendant that the sale agreement dated 26.11.2007 got expired and it is against law. The plaintiff requested the defendant to conclude the sale agreement dated 26.11.2007 on or before 15.02.2008 in his reply notice dated 06.02.2008. However, the defendant has not taken any steps to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement and stating that the suit filed by the plaintiff was a false one and it is against law. The defendant denied the fact that he has agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and he had no occasion to sell the same. The value of the suit property is approximately Rs.40,00,000/-. The fact that the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property at Rs.13,65,000/- is a false one and no sale agreement was entered between them. Actually on 26.11.2007 the defendant has requested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his urgent needs and for that, the plaintiff has demanded interest at Rs.3/- per Rs.100/-. The sale agreement said to have been executed is a false one as the worth of the suit property is Rs.40,00,000/- for which the sale agreement was entered only for Rs.13,65,000/-. The defendant denied the execution of the sale agreement and has also denied the signature in the said alleged agreement. . The sale agreement was a forged one created by the plaintiff and his henchman. The plaintiff has not refuted the averments in the notice sent by t