JUDGMENT

1.These Second Appeals have been preferred as against the common judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 passed in A.S.Nos.117 of 2011 and 7 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 in OS.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court Pollachi.

2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent in both the second appeals, field the suit for specific performance of contract and the suit was decreed. As against the judgment and decree, the first defendant preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.117 of 2011, who is the appellant herein in S.A.No.95 of 2015 and the second defendant preferred the first appeal in AS.No.7 of 2012, who is the appellant herein in S.A.No.58 of 2015. The said appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeals have been filed by the defendants.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties in these appeals are to be referred as plaintiff and defendants as referred in the original suit.

4. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The first defendant is the owner of the suit property through sale deed dated 17.02.2000. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement on 07.12.2006. The property’s sale price was fixed at Rs.3,12,000/-. The first defendant had already borrowed money from the plaintiff on 06.01.2004 to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also executed promissory note and agreed to pay the amount with interest at 24%. Thereafter, he did not repay the amount, therefore, interest along with principal would come to Rs.1,72,000/- and on 07.12.2006, the amount was adjusted for the advance of sale price. That apart, a sum of Rs.28,000/- also was paid on the date of the agreement itself.

Therefore, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance to the sale consideration and the period of contract was 6 months. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a telegram on 22.04.2007 followed by a letter on 23.04.2007 fixing the date for registration of sale deed. After receipt of the same, the first defendant failed to comply with the demand. However, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the meantime, the defendants 1 and 2 colluded with each other and fabricated an agreement dated 19.01.2006 and also registered a sale deed in the name of the second respondent on 27.04.2007. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:

i) The first defendant never borrowed money and executed promissory note and also not executed the sale agreement as alleged in the plaint. The documents are forged and concocted one and the signatures found in the agreement were also denied by him. The first defendant never agreed to adjust the principal amount and the interest amount in promissory note towards the advance amounnt. The first defendant denied the telegram and the notice allegedly sent by the plaintiff. The averments that after receipt of telegram and notice, the first defendant alienated the property in favour of the second defendant and the said sale deed will not binding upon the plaintiff, are also denied.

ii) That on 19.01.2006, the first defendant entered into a sale agreement with the second defendant in respect of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.4,29,000/- and on the same day, the first respondent received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as part of the sale consideration and also delivered the possession of the suit property to the second defendant. Subsequently, as per the agreement dated 19.01.2006, the first defendant executed a sale deed dated 27.04.2007 in favour of the second defendant after receiving the balance sale consideration. The said sale deed dated 27.04.2007 has been duly duly executed, registered and acted upon. However, the plaintiff filed the suit based on the forged documents. There is no cause of action for the suit and th