IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.01.2026.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Sakthivel A.S.No.190 of 2023 A.Mohammed Thariq ...Petitioner Vs.

R.Balamurugan ...Respondent Prayer :-

First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 of Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.26 of 2013 dated

15/12/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Doraiswamy For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesulu

Judgment

(Judgement of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal Suit.

2. The Suit has been laid for recovery of money based on the agreements dated 22.10.2010 and 15.12.2010.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has agreed to sell his property and received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as advance on 22.10.2010, subsequently on 16.05.2011, another sum of Rs.6,45,000/- was received and later, vide agreement dated 15.12.2010, another sum of Rs.25,00,000/-was received. Totally, the defendant has received a sum of Rs.56,45,000/-. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is not the owner of the property. Therefore, even when the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, viz. Sale agreements dated 22.10.2010 and 15.12.2010, as the defendant is not the owner of the property and also evading to execute the Sale Agreements, the plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money.

4. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendant that he has not executed any such agreements agreeing to sell the property, as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant are doing a Real Estate business and that, the plaintiff, to suit his own purpose, obtained the signature of the defendant in some blank papers and misused the same. According to the defendant, he has not received any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time, and therefore, he disputed the entire agreements itself.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1to A4 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6. The Trial Court on the basis of both oral and documentary evidence has framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with subsequent interest?

And ii) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. The Trial Court, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, found that the plaintiff has not established, whatsoever, the agreements marked as Exs.A1 and A2 and also disbelieved Ex.A4, viz., the letter/complaint stated to have given to the Police as against the defendant and dismissed the Suit.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would mainly submit that the respondent/defendant has not disputed the agreements, Exs.A1 and A2, whereas, he has admitted the signature that were found the sale agreements, and therefore, the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the Suit without properly appreciating the evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, entire onus is cast on the respondent/defendant to establish that there was no such agreements entered into between them.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that the agreements, Exs.A1 and A1 have not been established and that no prudent man would advance such a huge amount (Rs.56,45,000/-)

without verifying the right/title/ownership of the property.

10. In the light of the submissions made, now, the Points that arise for consideration in this Appeal Suit are as follows:-

i) Whether the sale agreements, Exs.A1 and A2 dated 22.10.2010 and 15.12.2010 were validly executed by the defendant?

and ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief.

11. On a perusal of Exs.A1 and A2, viz., the sale agreements dated

22.10.2010 and 15.12.2010, we find that the agreements, Exs.A1 and A2, were not supported by any consideration. Though