JUDGMENT

The plaintiff who is unsuccessful in challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.971 of 2014 of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem before the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem in A.S.No.91 of

2017, is the appellant before this Court.

2. For the ease of understanding, the parties are referred to in the same array as before the Trial Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 30.01.1997. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 30.01.1997, he had entered into an agreement of sale with one Muthusamy to purchase the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-. It is his further case that on the said date a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid as advance and the balance of Rs.35,000/- was to be paid within a period of one year. The sale agreement was executed on the same day in the presence of the witnesses. It is further case of the plaintiff that since Muthusamy had fallen ill, on 25.01.1998 he had requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration in order to meet his medical expenses. On the same day, the plaintiff had paid the balance sale consideration and Muthusamy had also handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiff and agreed to execute the sale deed as and when required by the plaintiff and an endorsement was made on the reverse of the promissory note on 25.01.1998.

4. Unfortunately, Muthusamy passed away on 06.10.2006 and the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property. On 1.11.2014, the plaintiff had contacted the defendants. However, they refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff therefore, has come forward with the suit in question.

5. The plaintiff has filed the suit in respect of an extent of 0.10.0 Hectare (i.e) 0.25 cents in Kothanoor Village, Salem District, which, as per the suit schedule, was bounded on the west by Kalavaikaduputhur Road and Kaliyammal Temple, north by Perumampatti Panchayat Office building and Govindaraj's house and south and east by the lands owned by one Paramasivam.

6. The defendants, on entering appearance, had filed a written statement inter alia contending that the defendants are not residing at Kothanoor village and they were forcefully driven out from the village by one Arayee, W/o Ammasi, Planisamy, S/o.Kanda Gounder and Thailan S/o.Ramasamy as early as in 1993 itself. The defendants who were originally shifted to Arapakkam in Kancheepuram, have returned for livelihood to Seergapadi Village at Salem. The written statement filed by the first defendant was adopted by the defendants 2 to 4.

7. The defendants would submit that Muthusamy was an alcoholic and taking advantage of his intoxicated stage, the plaintiff and others obtained signature in several blank papers and have instituted several suits. It would further submit that the signature in the sale agreement dated 30.01.1997 and the endorsement dated 25.01.1998 are forged and fabricated documents. With these forged documents, the plaintiff has instituted several suits for specific performance. It is the case of the defendants that no consideration has been paid under these agreements and all of them were obtained by force and undue influence by taking advantage of the said Muthusamy's alcoholic stage.

8. It is further contended that Muthusamy had registered a Will as early as on 02.05.1988, in favour of his minor son/second defendant in respect of 2.01 acres of land, comprised in Survey Nos.69/4, 69/10, 70/3 and 70/13 at Kothanoor village. The specific case of the defendants is that the said plaintiff and others are in unauthorised occupation of the properties of the defendants. The defendants would further submit that the signatures in the endorsements in the sale agreement dated 30.01.1997 and 25.01.1998 had not been executed by Muthusamy and they were forged and fabricated documents. That apart, the plaintiff had never approached the defendants for