An agreement of sale does not require attestation; proof of signatures of attesting witnesses is irrelevant to claims of specific performance.

COMMON ORDER

These two civil revision petitions arise against the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of

2022 in O.S.No.463 of 2014 dated 07.07.2022.

2. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. He filed O.S.No.463 of 2014. It is a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

14.06.2011.

3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the first defendant had executed a sale agreement in his favour. The terms of the agreement are that the suit schedule mentioned property will be sold in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. Under the agreement, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid leaving aside a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid within three months from the date of the said sale agreement. The plaintiff pleads that he approached the first defendant on several occasions to execute the sale deed and since the first defendant was evading the same, he issued a lawyer's notice on 01.09.2014 calling upon the first defendant to be present before the Sub Registrar Office at Periyanaickenpalayam on 08.09.2014. On 08.09.2014 as the first defendant was absent, the plaintiff was left with no other option than to present a suit for specific performance on 10.09.2014 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

4. On entering appearance, the first defendant filed a detailed written statement.

5. According to her, she never executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. She would state that her husband, the second defendant had some real estate business with one K.S.Rangasamy of Thiruchengode. During the course of said transaction with K.S.Rangasamy, he had handed over the original sale deed to the said Rangasamy. Although the deal was completed, Rangasamy did not return the document. Since the defendants reposed great faith in Rangasamy, they did not demand for the same immediately. Rangasamy had also given them an assurance that he will return the document as and when he traces out the same. To their shock and surprise, they received an Advocate notice on 01.09.2014, for which they suitably replied on 06.09.2014.

6. On the basis of these pleadings, the matter was taken up for trial after framing the issues.

7. During the stage of arguments, the plaintiff filed two applications namely I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022.

8. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is to reopen the suit for the purpose of comparison of signatures of the two attesting witnesses to the sale agreement dated 14.06.2011. I.A.No.2 of 2022 was to summon the Sub Registrar of Sulur for the production of Thumb Impression Register with respect to document No.5873 of 2011, the sale deed, in which the attesting witnesses were the parties.

9. The learned Trial Judge issued notice in these applications.

10. A counter statement was filed by the first defendant, which was adopted by the second defendant. Apart from the usual statement that the case is being dragged on by the plaintiff, they would point out that the application to summon the Registrar does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 75(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice. They would also state that the alleged signatures of the second defendant and that of, the other attesting witness, Ganesan are totally irrelevant for the lis that is being disputed over.

11. The learned Trial Judge, after consideration of the arguments on both sides, came to a conclusion that the applications deserved an order of dismissal and accordingly, dismissed it. Against which the present civil revision petitions.

12. I have heard Mr.K.Vijayaraghavan for the civil revision petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan for Mr.T.Dheeraj for the first respondent.

13. Mr.K.Vijayaraghvan would draw my attention to the sale deed dated 06.06.2011, a document executed by one Sekar in favour of one Ganesan and the second defendant. He would also draw the attention of this court to the sale agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff by the first defendant. In the second docum