Admitted unregistered sale agreement enforceable if defendant fails to prove sham; plaintiff readiness via notice and deposit suffices for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st defendant in a suit for specific performance is the appellant.

2.Pleadings:

The Plaint in brief:

The 1^st defendant is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 31.01.2018 with the 1^st defendant for purchase of the suit property, which is a vacant house site. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.15,00,000/-. The plaintiff has paid an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- on the date of execution of the said agreement of sale. The 1^st defendant had come forward to sell the property to meet his urgent family expenses. The balance sale consideration was payable only at the time of execution of the sale deed. In March 2018, the plaintiff informed the 1^st defendant that he was ready to execute the sale deed and that the balance sale consideration was also available. The plaintiff pleads that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff issued a lawyer’s notice on 31.03.2018. Despite receipt of notice, the 1^st defendant has not come forward to honour his commitments. The plaintiff has also lodged the remaining sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.Written statement in brief:

The 1^st defendant states that he knows only to speak Tamil and does not know to read and write in Tamil. The 1^st defendant did not execute any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The 1^st defendant, in order to meet the educational expenses of his children, wanted financial assistance and therefore, he was in urgent need of money. The 1^st defendant approached his wife’s uncle at Uthukottai, who introduced to him, the plaintiff. The plaintiff lent Rs.5,00,000/- in January 2018 as loan. At that point of time, the 1^st defendant had subscribed his signatures in stamp papers, believing that it is only a loan document. The 1^st defendant had agreed to repay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in two months. However, on 31.03.2018, he received a lawyer’s notice. On receipt of the notice, 1^st defendant approached the plaintiff with Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the plaintiff refused to receive the amount and threatened the defendant and also lodged a police complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur. An enquiry was conducted by the police officials. Though the 1^st defendant approached the plaintiff several times, offering to repay Rs.5,00,000/-, the plaintiff did not receive the same and only evaded the 1^st defendant. The sale agreement is compulsorily registerable on and from 01.12.2012 and hence, cannot be enforced. The 1^st defendant’s wife’s maternal uncle has colluded with the plaintiff, taking advantage of the fact that the 1^st defendant does not know to read and write Tamil.

4.Trial:

On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Saravanan was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked and on the side of the defendants, the 1^st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

5.Issues framed by the trial Court:

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1.Whether the sale agreement dated 31.01.2018 is a true and valid agreement?

2.Whether the sale agreement was executed only to secure the loan taken by the 1^st defendant from the plaintiff?

3.Whether the plaintiff has proud his mediums and willingness to conclude the contract?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

5.To what other relief?

6.Decision of the trial Court:

The trial Court decreed the suit and directed the 1^st defendant to execute the sale deed within a period of two months and also granted an injunction, restraining the 2^nd defendant from creating any encumbrance by way of sale, gift, settlement or otherwise in respect of the suit property.

7.The present appeal:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appeal suit has been preferred.

8.I have heard Mr.S.T.Raja, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Murali, learn