(1.) These second appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and the decrees passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, in A.S.Nos.12 and 13 of 2013 dismissing the appeals and confirming the decrees and common judgment of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo, in O.S.Nos.61 of 2009 and 10 of 2010. The appellant in S.A.No.958 of 2014 is the defendant in O.S.No.61 of 2009 and the respondent in the said second appeal is the defendant in the suit. The appellant in S.A.No.958 of 2014 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2010 and the respondent is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff in O.S.No.61 of 2009 and the defendant in O.S.No.10 of 2010 are one and the same person namely, Mrs.Arayee. For the sake of convenience in this judgement, the parties shall be referred to in their respective name.
(2.) Admittedly, Mrs.Arayee [the respondent in both the appeals] is the owner of the suit property, which is one and the same in both the suits. According to Mrs.Dharani Ammal [the appellant in S.A.No.958 of 2014], Mrs.Arayee had mortgaged the suit property under a registered mortgage deed dated 21.05.1992 to one Mrs.Nagammal. Later on, Mrs.Arayee was not able to redeem the mortgage. Therefore, she decided to sell the suit property to Mrs.Dharani Ammal. They reached an agreement for sale on 03.07.1993, by which, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.7,140/- [Rupees Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty only]. At the time of agreement itself, the entire amount of Rs.7,140/- was paid, out of which Mrs.Arayee paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- [Rupees Four Thousand only] to Mrs.Nagammal and redeemed the mortgage. Evidencing the payment of Rs.4,000/- an endorsement was made on the mortgage deed itself. Evidencing the said sale agreement, an unregistered deed of sale agreement was also executed by Mrs.Arayee in favour of Mrs.Dharani Ammal on 03.07.1993 itself. As per the terms of the agreement for sale, there was no time fixed for performance. It is the further case of Mrs.Dharani Ammal that she was all along ready and willing to perform her part of contract to get sale deed executed in her favour. But, Mrs.Arayee was evasive and she did not come forward to perform her part of contract and to sell the property in favour of Mrs.Dharani Ammal though Mrs.Arayee had received the entire sale consideration already. There were also exchange of notices. Finally, seeking a decree for specific performance of contract based on the agreement of sale dated 03.07.1993, Mrs.Dharani Ammal filed the suit in O.S.10 of 2010.
(3.) Mrs.Arayee in her written statement took the plea that it is true that she is the owner of the suit property. But, she had never entered into any such sale agreement on 03.07.1993, as it is claimed by Mrs.Dharani Ammal. According to her, her husband had approached the husband of Mrs.Dharani Ammal by name Mr.Muniyan for a loan of Rs.3,000/- . Mr.Muniyan [the appellant in S.A.No.959 of 2014 and the defendant in O.S.No.61 of 2009] was the then Thalayari of the Village. Mr.Muniyandi agreed and paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as loan. In turn, he was permitted to enjoy the suit property towards the interest payable for the loan amount. Mr.Muniyan agreed and assured Mrs.Arayee and her husband that he would handover the possession of the property to Mrs.Arayee on repayment of the loan amount. At that time, as per the mutual agreement, the original title deed in the name of Mrs.Arayee was also handed over to Mr.Muniyan along with the discharged mortgage deed mentioned herein above. According to her further case, during that transaction, whether she was forced to sign in blank stamp papers or not, could not be recollected by her. However, she took a specific stand that she never executed any such sale agreement as propounded by Mrs.Dharani Ammal. Subsequently, on mobilizing the funds, when Mrs.Arayee approached Mr.Muniyan to settle the loan and to take back the possession of the property, he was evasive and he did not come forward to receive the loan amount and to handover the vacant possession of the property to Mrs.Arayee. Therefore, Mrs.Arayee issued a legal notice on 06.03.2009 demanding Mr.Muniyan to handover vacant possession. In view of these facts, according to Mrs.Arayee, Mrs.Dharani Ammal is not entitled for a decree for specific performance of contract as prayed for in O.S.No.10 of 2010.