IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.04.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.12690 of 2023 V.Vijayalakshmi ... Appellant Vs.

D.Annalakshmi (Died)

Wife of Duraisamy

1. Dhanushkodi Son of Duraisamy

2. Mohanasundaram Son of Duraisamy

3. V.Kalyani Wife of Vanniyamuthu ...Respondents (Impleaded as per order in I.A.No,2 of 2019 dated 05.08.2019 and Amended as per order in I.A.No.3 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019)

Prayer : Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 01.11.2022 made in A.S.No.55 of 2013 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.02.2012 made in O.S.No.64 of 2010 passed by Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Jagadeesan For M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates For R3 : No appearance

J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2010.

The plaintiff/D.Annalakshmi filed the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Tiruttani, Thiruvallur District, seeking specific performance, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaintiff as per the sale agreement entered between the parties dated 29.08.2007.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to the appellant herein/defendant and she has to sell the property to the plaintiff as per the sale agreement was entered into between them on 29.08.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,07,000.- Further, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance and within one month, the sale deed is to be executed by the defendant, receiving the balance amount. Even though, time limit was fixed, time is not the essence of the contract since the defendant received the entire amount dated 28.11.2007, 23.12.2007 and 19.06.2008 from the plaintiff to that effect on the back side of the sale agreement also made in the presence of the witnesses. However, the defendant has refused to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 02.02.2010, and the same was replied to by her for false allegations. Further, the plaintiff has also given a re-joinder notice for the same since the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit.

3. The defendant has filed a written statement stating that she never agreed to sell the suit property and never executed the sale agreement and has not received the amount mentioned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a money lender and due to urgent want of money, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a hand loan and for which the plaintiff obtained signatures from the defendant and using the same, he created the sale agreement. The suit property is worth more than Rs. 10 Lakhs and there is no intention to sell the suit property. The plaintiff is having previous enmity with the defendant. The defendant never received any amount in installments as mentioned in the plaint. The agreement is fraud one. Further,the plaintiff has not approached the Court for seeking relief of specific performance in time and she has not proved her readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, therefore, she has not entitled for any relief.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff's side PW1 to PW6 were examined and the documents Ex.A1 to A15 were marked. The defendant's side DW1 was examined, and no documents were marked. 5. On hearing both sides, the trial Judge held that the signature found in the agreement/Ex.A1 was admitted by the defendant therefore the burden is on her to prove that she signed document only for hand loan but she has not adduced any such document to prove her defence, however, the plaintiff proved the execution of the document through witnesses PW2 to PW6 who deposed that the defendant has received the money from the plaintiff on variou