(1.) The defendant has preferred this Second Appeal as against the decree for specific performance and possession of suit property, passed by the lower appellate Court, on reversal of the dismissal of the suit in the trial Court.
(2.) The averments found in the plaint are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Chandraraju pillai who on 09.05.1984 had executed a will in a sound disposing state of mind and the said will was duly executed and attested and it was his last will, as per the terms of which the plaintiff was given the suit property and another item with absolute right. Chandraraju pillai died and the Will took effect. Even prior to the will, he had sold the property to the defendant by a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1983 for Rs.1,500/- and on the same day Chandraraju pillai and the defendant entered into an agreement of reconveyance as per the terms of which the former was entitled to get reconveyance within five years there from on payment of Rs.1,500/-. In the mean time as Chandraraju pillai died, the legatee under the Will, the plaintiff is entitled to get reconveyance. Expressing her ready and willingness, the plaintiff issued a notice on 02.08.1988, calling upon the defendant to execute a sale deed. The same was served on the defendant on 03.08.1988. As defendant failed, the suit was filed for specific performance and possession.
(3.) The defendant filed the written statement with the following averments: True it is that suit property orginally belonged to Chandraraju pillai and he had sold the same to the defendant on 30.12.1983 for Rs.1,500/-. It is untrue to say that there was an agreement of reconveyance and the said agreement is a rank forgery. The plaintiff is incompetent to file the suit as she is not the daughter of Chandraraju pillai. The alleged Will dated 09.05.1984 is also a forgery. It was not properly executed and duly attested. The original Will is not in the custody of the defendant. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed.