GEORGE KAVALAM Vs. P. VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit O.S. No. 131/1998 on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore for the relief of specific performance directing the respondent herein/defendant to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in his favour and for cost.

(2.) The above said prayer was made based on the plaint averment that the respondent/defendant entered into an agreement with the appellant/plaintiff on 05.03.1995 for the sale of the suit property (a house site) for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance and delivered the original title deeds to the appellant/plaintiff; that though the appellant/plaintiff was keeping ready the balance amount of sale consideration and requested the respondent/defendant on several occasions to receive the same and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the respondent/defendant was postponing the same under one pretext or other; that subsequently when the appellant/plaintiff came to know that the respondent/defendant was making attempts to sell the property to someone else for a higher price, he issued a notice dated 14.02.1998 calling upon the respondent/defendant to come to Sub Registrar(tm)s office at Gandhipuram on 19.02.1998 at 10.00 a.m, collect the balance amount of sale consideration, execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and register the same; that even thereafter, the respondent/defendant did not turn up and he was dodging and that hence the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the above said relief.

(3.) The plaint plea was resisted based on the contention that the respondent/defendant never agreed to sell the suit property and she did not receive a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff; that on 26.07.1994 in order to borrow a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from one Vijayaraghavan for the business requirement of her husband, the respondent/defendant signed blank stamp papers, blank papers and blank inland letters and handed over the title deeds of her house property to her husband; that the said papers were handed over to the said Vijayaraghavan by the husband and second son of the respondent/defendant; that in addition, the said Vijayaraghavan had obtained a blank cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- from the husband of the respondent/defendant and that the said cheque was filled up in the name of one Srikumar for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and presented for encashment to be dishonoured for the reason "insufficient funds". She contended further that the criminal case instituted on complaint for the dishonour of the cheque was pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Coimbatore and that the appellant/plaintiff colluded with the said Vijayaraghavan, misused the blank papers and blank stamp papers containing the signature of the respondent/defendant to create the suit sale agreement and thus the suit came to be filed for making wrongful gain. It was also contended by the respondent/defendant that the suit sale agreement was a forged one.