RAJIAH NADAR Vs. MANONMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S.No. 148 of 1984 reversing the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in O.S.No. 217 of 1982. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale praying for a decree directing the defendant to execute a sale deed on receiving the balance of Rs. 6,250/- within the date to be specified by the Court, failing which the Court to execute the sale on behalf of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the defendant and the defendant entered into an agreement on 11-10-1981 with the plaintiff to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 15,750/- and had received an advance of Rs. 5,500/- on that date itself and had executed a written agreement to that effect. As per the conditions of the agreement, the defendant should execute a sale deed at the expense of the plaintiff in three months time after receiving the balance of Rs. 10,250/-. According to the plaintiff, after the execution of the sale agreement, the defendant had received Rs. 4,000/- on 28-10-1981 from the plaintiff as part of the balance due and had made endorsement on the back of the agreement itself. Though the plaintiff was requesting the defendant to execute the sale deed, the defendant was evading the execution of the same giving one excuse or another. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract during the agreed period and continues to be ready to pay the balance and to get the sale deed in her name. Even now she was ready to perform her part of the contract. Only recently the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was wantonly delaying the execution and with a view to sell the property to the third parties for higher price and therefore, on 14-9-1982 the plaintiff had sent a notice through her advocate to the defendant for fixing the date of execution of the sale deed. The defendant had received the notice, but did not send any reply. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement while disputing the suit claim would state that he did not enter into a contract of sale with the plaintiff and did not receive Rs. 5,500/- as advance much less on 11-10-1981. The further contention that the defendant had received Rs. 4,000/- on 28-10-1981 towards the sale was also false. The claims of the plaintiff as having been ready and willing to perform the contract and that the defendant was evading were not true and tenable. According to the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff entered into a contract of the sale with the defendant with reference to the eastern 5 cents of land lying east of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 15,750/- on 10-10-1981 and got the signature of the defendant in blank papers stating that the sale agreement will be executed in the name of his son, Chandrasekaran. The plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit property. On receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 10,250/-, the husband of the plaintiff got the signature of the defendant in the sale deed on 11-3-1982 in the name of his wife, Manonmani Ammal instead of in the name of his son as agreed upon in respect of eastern 5 cents. After the registration of the said document it appears that the husband of the plaintiff had utilised the signature obtained by him for the sale agreement in the name of Chandrasekaran and forged the suit agreement in the name of the plaintiff. The claim of payment of Rs. 4,000/- was also denied as false and the endorsement was also a rank forgery. The defendant would further plead that after the execution of the sale deed dated 11-3-1982 for Rs. 11,000/- the defendant had nothing to do either with the plaintiff or the husband of the plaintiff. After the receipt of suit notice, the defendant threatened the plaintiff's husband for taking criminal action for the forgery of the alleged agreement and the husband of the plaintiff promised to drop the proceedings and hence the defendant did not send any reply.