IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 19.02.2020 Date of Verdict : 04.03.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN S.A.No.915 of 2006 1.Palanisamy (Died)

2.Madhammal 3.Chinnapayan

4.Iyyappan

5.Valarmathy

6.Dhanabhakiyam (Appellants 2 to 6 brought on record as LR's of the deceased sole appellant viz., Palanisamy vide order of Court dated 25.11.2019 made in C.M.P.No.

24962, 24965 and 24968 of 2019 in S.A.No.915/2006. ... Appellants Vs.

Pallikoodathan ... Respondent Prayer :- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 made in A.S.No.27 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Court, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2005 in O.S.No.564 of 1999 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court.

For Appellants : Ms.K.S.Kamakshi for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Krishnan

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is directed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2006 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.546 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Salem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for specific performance and permanent injunction. The suit property is the ancestral property of the defendant and he entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 28.05.1998 and agreed to sell the suit property for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- in which, he received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as an advance. Eighteen months time was fixed for the execution of the sale deed. As per terms of the agreement, if the plaintiff defaulted to pay the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff has to forfeit the advance amount and the sale agreement dated 28.05.1998 stands cancelled automatically. While being so, the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed as agreed by him. Hence, the plaintiff has issued legal notice on 30.10.1999. Even then nothing was happened and the plaintiff came to understand that the defendant was making arrangements to sell the suit property to third parties. Hence, the suit is filed for specific performance and permanent injunction.

4. Resisting the plaintiff’s case, the defendant filed written statement denying the averments and allegations made in the plaint as false and frivolous. The defendant never entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff dated 28.05.1998 and also denied the receipt of Rs.1,30,000/- as advance to sell the suit property. Admittedly, the suit property is an ancestral property and not yet divided between his family members. The plaintiff’s brother-in-law one Palanisamy was elected as Panchayat President. He is doing illicit arrack business and misusing his official position by uprooting the valuable trees numbering 200 belonged to the defendant which were situated in the patta land of the defendant and tried to lay the road for his convenience. Therefore, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.13 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem for permanent injunction. While being so, the said Palanisamy has obtained the defendant’s signature in empty pro-notes and stamp papers in respect of laying the road. The plaintiff is none other than his own brother-in-law and he had fabricated and concocted the alleged agreement for sale using the blank signed stamp papers and filed the present suit. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and