KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.23 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Bhavani, are the appellants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. It was a suit filed for specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 06.12.1990. The suit was decreed as prayed for by the trial court. As against the same, an appeal in A.S.No.19 of 1997 was preferred by the defendants in A.S.No.19 of 1997 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani. It was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. As against the same, the defendants are now before this court with this second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:- The suit property admittedly belongs to the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, an agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on 06.12.1990 by which the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.25,000/- . A sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid on the same day as advance and the balance of Rs.10,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff within a period of 3 months and to get the sale completed in his favour. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, the 1st defendant was evading to perform his part of contract. The 1st defendant was contemplating to sell the suit property to the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff had to file the present suit for specific performance.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, it was specifically contended that the sale agreement dated 06.12.1990 was not at all executed by the 1st defendant. There was no such agreement at all entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant did not receive Rs.15,000/- as it was alleged by the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the suit property was originally owned by one Siddha Gounder and Gurunathan. Pursuant to an execution proceedings in E.A.No.653 of 1991 in O.S.No.143 of 1991 , the suit property was brought for sale before the District Munsif, Bhavani. The 1st defendant participated in the court auction and became the successful bidder. As a result, the property was sold in the court auction to the 1st defendant and that is how, the 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff herein is the brother in law of Siddha Gounder and Gurunathan. The said Siddha Gounder and Gurunathan in collusion with the plaintiff have fabricated the sale agreement in question and thus the present suit has been filed based on the said forged document. The thumb impressions found on the sale agreement in question were not made by the 1st defendant at all and the said thumb impressions found on the sale agreement [Ex.A.1] is a rank forgery. It is the further case of the 1st defendant that on 02.11.1990, the 1st defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd defendant's son for a sum of Rs.39,000/- during which a sum of Rs.6,000/- has also been paid by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.