K PONNUSAMY Vs. V R SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant before this Court. The suit is for specific performance, on the basis of the agreement of sale made between the appellant and the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the appellant has agreed to sell a Plot measuring 3 cents in favour of him and received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of an agreement dated 14.08.1996. It was further agreed by the appellant that after entrusting patta, kist receipts within one year, agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- and to register the property in the name of the first respondent/plaintiff. Since the appellant failed to perform his part of contract, the first respondent filed the suit for specific performance. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and decreed the suit. Against which, the appellant preferred an appeal and the Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

(2.) The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) In so far as the first question of law is concerned, the appellant claims that the agreement of sale is a forged one. On a perusal of the materials available before this Court, it could be seen that the first respondent/plaintiff has let in evidence as P.W.1 that the appellant / first defendant has agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards sale consideration. While executing the agreement of sale, he had also handed over the original of the title deed to the first respondent / plaintiff. Sale agreement was witnessed by two witnesses and one of the witnesses deposed as P.W.2 would speak that the appellant / first defendant has executed the agreement and has received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in cash. The plea of the first respondent / plaintiff was admitted by the second defendant, who is none other than the son of the appellant / first defendant in his written statement. Further, even though the appellant / first defendant complained that the agreement for sale is a forged document and it should be referred to the handwriting expert to prove the genuineness, has failed to take any steps in this direction. In fact, he filed a petition to refer the documents for the purpose of expert opinion. But for the purpose of comparing the signature found in the agreement, the appellant / first defendant failed to produce the admitted signature of his.