IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and C.M.P.No.6071 of 2023 Mr.G.Babu ... Appellant / Plaintiff -vs-

M.Kanniyappan ... Respondent / Defendant PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2012, dated 25.07.2022, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.93 of 2005, dated 20.09.2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.

For Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondent : Mr.K.Mohanamurali

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is focused against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Vellore at Ranipet.

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

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 07.09.2002, agreeing to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- within a period of three years from the date of agreement. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As the defendant evaded to perform his part of the contract, despite repeated requests and demands, a legal notice was caused to be issued to the defendant on 30.08.2005. Thereafter also as the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed, suit for the relief of specific performance was laid by the plaintiff. 5. Contending contra, the defendant would state that he obtained loan from the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and at that point of time, the defendant was asked to sign in many empty stamp papers. He repaid the said loan in full but after the repayment of the said loan, the plaintiff was evading to return back the said empty signed papers. In this regard, plaintiff told that the said papers were misplaced and he would return that as soon as the papers are found out. On receipt of legal notice, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return back the empty signed stamp papers. But the plaintiff told him that notice was sent by mistake. But, after 10 months, the plaintiff filed the suit by fabricating the sale agreement and signed papers. The sale agreement was not executed by the defendant and no consideration was received from the plaintiff. Hence, there is no contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendant. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is not ready to perform his part of the contract.

6. Based on the rival submissions, the trial Court framed the relevant issues. At trial, to substantiate the plaint details, on the plaintiff side, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and Mayandi, 2nd attestor to the sale agreement (Ex.A1) was examined as PW2 and three documents were marked. Agreement of sale executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff (unregistered) dated 07.09.2002 is Ex.A1. On the defendant side, defendant has been examined as DW1.

7. The sum and substance of the plaintiff's case is that the defendant herein entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 07.09.2002 agreeing to sell the suit property - cultivating land, for a sale price of Rs.2,00,000/- and the defendant received an advance amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. He has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendant has been evading to perform his part of contract inspite of repeated demands made by him.

8. With regard to execution of sale agreement, defendant would contend that he has signed in the empty stamp papers and that was forged and suit has been laid with the said document. In t