JUDGMENT

The appeal suit has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in O.S.NO.183 of 2013, thereby dismissing the suit for specific performance.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The suit is for specific performance. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to the defendant. He agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for the sale price of Rs.1,100/- per sq.ft., to the total extent of 1453½ sq.ft., comprised in survey No.30/2F-2 situated at Kondichettipatti Village, Namakkal Taluk. Accordingly, they entered into agreement for sale on 03.11.2008 and paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance. The time fixed for the performance of contract was three months from the date of the agreement for sale. The defendant also agreed and handed over the original parent deeds.

3.1. Subsequent to the sale agreement, the plaintiff had paid various amounts viz., on 05.12.2008 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the defendant and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 19.02.2009, by way of cheque. Thereafter, on 03.04.2009, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of chque. While pending final decree application in O.S.No.1649 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid on 31.05.2009. On receipt of the same, the defendant assured that the sale deed will be executed within a period of two months from the date of final decree in O.S.No.1649 of 2004. Finally, on 18.02.2010, further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid in favour of the defendant. Except the last payment, other payments were endorsed in the agreement for sale. In total, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as part of the sale consideration to purchase the suit property. However, suppressing the said fact, the defendant attempted to sell property to the third party. Therefore, the plaintiff caused notice on

05.11.2013 and thereafter filed the present suit.

4. Resisting the same, the defendant filed written statement stating that, the defendant is doing bike mechanic and consulting business. After purchasing the suit property, he obtained loan and constructed a house. He had acquittance with the husband of the plaintiff who is having lorry body building business and also poultry form in front of the defendant's shop. The defendant used to borrow money from the husband of the plaintiff for his business purpose. While borrowing loan in the year 2008, the defendant signed blank pronote, Cheques and other blank stamp papers. While borrowing loan, he also handed over the original sale deed for security purpose. In the stamp paper, the plaintiff also obtained left thump impression of the defendant. In fact, the defendant came to understand about the final decree application pending in O.S.No.1649 of 2004, only on receipt of the summon in the final decree application from the District Munsif Court, Namakkal. Therefore, in order to grab the property in the name of the plaintiff, her husband colluded and fabricated the agreement for sale and filed the suit. At no point of time, the defendant offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff.

5. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute the sale deed as per agreement dated 03.11.2008 for Rs.15,98,850/- by receiving the balance sale amount of Rs.98,850/- & put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property?

(ii) On failure of the same, whether the court has to execute the sale deed?

(iii) Whether the signature of the defendant is obtained fraudulently for the debt borrowed from the plaintiff's husband on various dates?

(iv) Whether the sale agreement is a forged one?

(v) to what relief?”

6. On the side of the pl