IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Second Appeal No. 988 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 ---

1. Rathinavalli

2. Kannan

3. Mahalakshmi

4. Sathiswari

5. Mahadevi .. Appellants Versus Sakthivel .. Respondent Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 made in A.S. No. 46 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010 made in O.S. No. 326 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Salem.

For Appellants : Ms. K. Ponmani for M/s.T.Kurugamanickam For Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 passed in A.S. No. 46 of 2011 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010 passed in O.S. No. 326 of 2005 by the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Salem.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 326 of 2005 filed by the Respondent herein for the relief of specific performance was dismissed and against which, the Respondent filed A.S. No. 46 of 2011 before the First Appellate Court and it was allowed. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is filed by the Defendants in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” as has been arrayed in the suit.

4. As per the plaint averments, the Plaintiff and one Madheswaran, who is the husband of the first Defendant, have entered into an agreement of sale dated 30.05.2002, for purchase of the plaint described property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/- out of which the Plaintiff paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance and the balance payable is Rs.50,000/-. The agreement of sale dated 30.05.2002 was also registered on the file of Sub- Registrar, Vazhapady under document No. 1201 of 2002. After executing the agreement of sale, on 03.04.2003 the said Madheswaran approached the Plaintiff to grant him six months time for executing the sale deed, which the Plaintiff granted after making a due endorsement on the sale agreement dated 30.05.2002. Subsequently, on 10.09.2003, at the request of the said Madheswaran, the Plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.30,000/- and asked the said Madheswaran to execute the sale deed. This time also, the said Madheswaran sought another six months time and accordingly, after due endorsement in the agreement of sale itself, time was granted. Subsequently, on 10.03.2004, when the Plaintiff approached the said Madheswaran, he sought another time of six months. Suspecting that the said Madheswaran is evading and avoiding to execute the sale deed, the Plaintiff issued a notice dated 20.10.2004 calling upon the said Madheswaran to execute the sale deed, however, no reply was received. Therefore, another notice dated 04.03.2005 was issued calling upon the said Madheswaran to execute the sale deed on 28.03.2005. On receipt of the notice dated 04.03.2005, no reply was received and on enquiry, the Plaintiff came to know that the said Madheswaran died leaving behind the Defendants as his legal heirs. Therefore, the Plaintiff met the Defendants and sought to execute the sale deed, but they refused it. Therefore, on 25.07.2005, the Plaintiff sent a notice calling upon the Defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour on 17.08.2005. However, a reply notice dated 17.08.2005 was issued containing untenable averments. Therefore, the Plaintiff has instituted the suit.

5. On notice in the suit, the first Defendant filed a written statement mainly contending that the agreement of sale dated 30.05.2002 is forged and her husband had never executed any such agreement. It is further stated that the husband of the first Defendant Madheswaran is a famous Astrologer in the locality and there was no necessity for him to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Even otherwise, the market value of the suit pr