NALLAMMAL Vs. DHANSHKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.200 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Melur, is the appellant in the second appeal. She filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale between herself and the respondent. Her case was as follows: On 25.4.1983 the respondent executed a sale agreement in respect of the suit property in her favour agreeing to sell the property of Rs.6,000 received Rs.5,000 as advance on the date of agreement and further agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property within a period of three years after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 1,000 from her.

(2.) IT was further agreed that if the respondent failed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount within the stipulated period, he should surrender possession of the property to her. He also further agreed to give half share of the produce from the suit property till he executed the sale deed in her favour. Inspite of the repeated demands made by her, the respondent did not receive the balance of Rs. 1,000 from her and execute to the sale deed. She had always been ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in her favour at her cost. Mediators are also sent with a requisition to receive the balance sale price and execute the sale deed. As the respondent was not willing, on 21.4.1986 she caused a notice to be issued to the respondent calling upon him to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. He did not agree. She was willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,000 into court and the suit for specific performance came to be filed.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. S. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the agreement was disputed by the respondent and his specific case was that it was a created one and in such circumstances the onus was in entirely on the appellant to satisfy the Court that the disputed agreement contained the signature of the respondent. The learned counsel, further, submitted that the lower appellate court, as the final Court of fact, had come to the conclusion that the agreement was a forged document and sitting in second appeal this Court should not interfere. In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Court in Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammed, AIR 1999 SC 1104 was relied on: