A subsequent registered agreement that alters terms can rescind an earlier unregistered contract, affecting the enforceability of specific performance claims.

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2010 in A.S.No.132 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2005 in O.S.No.487 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of Sale Agreement dated 21.05.1998 executed by C.Duraisamy. Plaint suit property was owned by the said Duraisamy. The defendants are the wife and children of him. Since the said Duraisamy died, the suit is filed against the wife and his children. He had agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,15,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance on the date of agreement i.e., on 21.05.1998. Eleven months time was fixed to complete the sale. Since he died without executing the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit against the legal heirs of Duraisamy.

4.The defendants contested the suit, denied the allegations in the plaint and filed a written statement contending that Duraisamy had not executed any agreement for sale. He had received Rs.20,000/- as loan from the father of the plaintiff namely Palanisamy. At that time, Palanisamy obtained signatures in several blank papers and documents at the Registrar Office and got Power of Attorney dated 21.05.1998 on the same day in favour of his brother namely B.Balasubramaniam. Further, the Power of Attorney namely B.Balasubramaniam executed a sale agreement in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.1227 of 1998. Therefore, the said document does not bind upon the defendants and pleaded that the defendants are willing to settle the actual borrowed amount by Duraisamy with normal rate of interest. Thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit.

5.On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration:

“1/thjp gpuhjpy; nfhhpago “Vw;wij Mw;Wf” ghpfhuk;

bgwntz;oath; jhdh> (mrypd; 4k; gf;fk; Kot[)

2/ gpujpthjpfs; jhth brhj;ij fpiuak; bra;ahky; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpf;f ntz;oaJ jhdh>

3/ ntW vd;d ghpfhuk;>”

6. Before the Trial Court, in support of the plaintiff's case, PW 1 to PW3 were examined and 10 documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On the side of the defendants, 1st defendant herself examined as DW1 and 1 document was marked as Ex.B.1.

7. Upon considering the evidence and documents, the trial Court dismissed the suit and rejected the prayer for specific performance of sale agreement and permanent injunction as claimed by the plaintiff.

8.Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.132 of 2006, before the I Additional District Judge's Court, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court, after considering the entire materials and evidence on record confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

9. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether in law the Courts below erred in casting the burden of proof of Ex.A1, sale agreement on the plaintiff, even after admitting the signature of her husband in it, that too after discharging his burden of proof by examining the attesting witness on his side as held in the judgment reported in 2007 1 CTC Page No.449?

(2) Whether in law the Courts below erred in overlooking that it is for the defendants to prove her plea of coercion especially when an alternate case of loan is pleaded on her side and on failure of the same the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance as held in the judgment reported in 2005 1 CTC Page No. 753 and 2007 1 CTC Page No.449.

(3) Whether in law the findings of the Courts below that Ex.A1 should not have be