Specific performance denied for unproved 30-year-old sale agreement lacking executant signature proof under Evidence Act, no continuous readiness/willingness, absence of part performance possession, and inordinate delay.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1.These second appeals are at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 343 of 2011 and 7^th defendant in O.S.No.287 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. I have heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in both the second second appeals.

4. Though the respondents have been served and the first respondent in the second appeals also entered appearance through counsel, subsequently, vide memo dated 28.07.2025, the counsel has reported no instructions. This Court by order dated 29.07.2025 directed the name of the respondents concerned to be printed in the cause list. The Registry has also printed the name of the contesting first respondent in the second appeals. There is no representation on the side of the respondents. I have therefore proceeded to hear Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants.

5. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties' rank in O.S.No.287 of 2011 is followed to describe the parties to the lis.

6. The Second Appeals were admitted on 19.12.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the plaintiff has averred and proved his readiness and willingness as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, with regard to Ex.A.1 sale agreement when the suit is filed 30 years after the sale agreement?

(2) When the plaintiff has traced his possession through Ex.A.1 sale agreement, whether the 1^st appellate Court was right in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act , has no jurisdiction to recover possession from a cultivating tenant?

(3) When the plaintiff has traced his possession through a sale agreement whether the first appellate Court was right in holding that the suit is not maintainable for not issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?

(4) Whether the first appellate Court was right in placing the burden of proof to disprove Ex.A.1 sale agreement on the defendants in violation of Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act?

(5) Whether the deposition of P.W.4 who deposed about the signature of the attester alone and not that of the executor will satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(6) Whether the first appellate Court was right in declaring Ex.B.1 sale deed as null and void when Ex.A.1 sale agreement is not proved in accordance with Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(7) Whether the first appellate Court was right in declaring Ex.B.1 sale deed as null and void when the plaintiff has not averred and proved his readiness and willingness with regard to Ex.A.1 sale agreement for the past 30 years?

7. Brief facts that are necessary to decide the second appeals are as follows:

7.1. O.S.No.287 of 2011 was filed by the first respondent/Santhanam for specific performance and for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 6 in favour of the seventh defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for a consequent permanent injunction to restrain the seventh defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and also