D JAWAHAR Vs. M JAYASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in O.S. No. 202 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant, and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiff and first defendant respectively before the trial Court. The plaintiff/first respondent herein filed the suit with the following prayer;

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though a detailed written statement was filed mentioning as to how the plaintiff represented to the second defendant expressing his inability to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- for execution of the sale agreement and under what circumstances, the cancellation deed came to be extended on 22.10.2007, the Courts below ignoring all those aspects, wrongly decreed the suit. He pointed out that when the plaintiff entered into the witness box, a specific question was put to him with regard to his signature appended in the cancellation deed dated 22.10.2007, marked as Ex. B1, for which, the plaintiff/first respondent admitted the said signature. Whileso, the Courts below, without taking note of the admission of the plaintiff, erroneously proceeded to decree the suit. Therefore, if the appeal is not admitted and allowed, the second defendant/appellant would be put to great-prejudice, since he had already returned the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, after execution of the cancellation deed dated 22.10.2007.

(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Govindasamy Gounder v. Annamala and Another, 2011 1 LW 1019 for the proposition that when the executant admitted the signature and did not state any reason for his signature in the document, it can be presumed, in the absence of other evidence, that the executant signed the document after knowing the contents.