IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI R.Dhasarathy ...Appellants / Plaintiff Vs.

R.Selvaraj ...Respondent / Defendant PRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 made in A.S.No.15 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2022 made in O.S.No.71 of

2017 on the file of Subordinate Court, Jayangondam.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Murugan For Respondent : Mr.S.Senthilnathan

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2022 by the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, suit property belongs to the defendant.

The defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. In the presence of the witnesses, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as an advance. Period of performance was fixed as one year. The defendant executed the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff on 13.03.2011. The plaintiff has been willing and ready to perform his part of contract by paying the remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-.

3.1. But the defendant does not come forward to execute the sale deed and is protracting the execution of sale deed. Plaintiff expressed his willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract in person and through his men to the defendant. On 14.02.2012, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant to be present at the Office of the Sub-Registrar to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. It was received by the defendant and he sent the reply notice with false contentions on 13.03.2011 and denied the execution of sale agreement. It is incorrect to state that the defendant mortgaged the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and received only a sum of Rs.50,000/- and on or before 05.03.2012, he has to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- and obtain a receipt from the defendant: For one year period, the plaintiff was allowed to cultivate the suit property for interest and upon receiving the principal amount, he has to hand over the possession of the suit property to the defendant are incorrect details. Hence, the suit was laid for relief of specific performance in respect of the suit property.

4. Contending contra, the defendant would inter-alia contend that the execution of sale agreement by the defendant is an utter lie. The suit agreement is a rank forgery. The plaintiff has forged the sale agreement. The defendant purchased the suit property on 06.02.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,60,900/- and he had mortgaged the suit property with Bank of India, Azhghapuram Branch on 06.08.2008 by executing mortgage deed in favour of the Bank and the said debt is not repaid till date. The plaintiff, who is residing in the place where the suit property is situated, requested the defendant to hand over the suit property for mortgage, for which the defendant refused. As the plaintiff persisted the defendant, on 13.11.2010, he mortgaged the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for a year and he received only a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on or before 05.03.2011. The mortgage deed is with the plaintiff and Xerox copy of the mortgage deed is with the defendant. Based on the said mortgage deed, the plaintiff has been cultivating in the suit property but did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- to the defendant. In January 2012, the defendant through Rajendran, Balu, Selvam, Thirukkonam Karuppusamy, Kundaveli Rajendran, the plaintiff agreed to hand over the possession of the land after harvesting groundnut. Contra to the same, the plaintiff forged the sale agreement and he has i