IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 23.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Second Appeal No.127 of 2022 R. Sridhar ... Appellant -Vs-

1. K.Govindasami Mudaliar

2. A.Sampath (Deceased)

Mrs.Geetha

3. Mrs.Durga ... Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.08.2021 in A.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Vellore at Ranipet dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.2015 in O.S.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arakonam.

For Appellant : Mr. L.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston For M/s.Sarvabhavman Associates

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent findings wherein, both the Courts below have dismissed the suit for specific performance.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 19.04.1996, the defendants have come forward to sell the suit property for total sale consideration of Rs.1,12,500/- and on the same day, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. The balance sale consideration of Rs.92,500/- to be paid on or before 30.07.1996 and the Sale deed has to be executed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform on the part of his contract however, the defendant was avoiding for execution of Sale deed. On 02.08.1998, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice, by calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, however, the defendants have demanded more sale consideration than the agreed amount. The demand of defendants was illegal, hence plaintiff had not come forward to pay the same and once again on 06.08.1998 and 11.08.1998 the plaintiff has sent legal notice calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed.

4. After receiving the legal notice on 10.08.1998, the second defendant has sent a reply stating that, the second defendant was suffering from mental ailments and he could not have executed the agreement for sale. Since the reply was sent with false averments, the plaintiff has come forward to file the suit for specific performance.

5. Before the Trial Court, the first defendant has not come forward to contest the suit. The second defendant contested the claim and filed written statement. It is stated that the second defendant, who was suffering from mental ailments and he could not subscribe his signatures in the agreement for sale in fit state of mind. The possession of suit property was not handed over to the plaintiff. The first defendant has no manner of right in the suit properties and he has been falsely included in the agreement for sale. Since, the agreement for sale has been falsely created, the second defendant has come forward to lodge a complaint to the District Collector, alleging the fabrication of documents and there is no consideration for agreement and that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and prays to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

“1.Whether it is true that the plaintiff has created the sale agreement, dated 19.04.1996 fraudulently by taking advantage of the mental disorders of the defendant as alleged in the written statement?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree directing the defendants to enforce the sale agreement dated

19.04.1996 as prayed?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed?

4.To what relief is the plaintiff is entitled?”

7. After framing of issues, the Trial Court accepted the sale agreements entered between the parties, however, on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance. The Trial Court has grant