SA/2/2023 of K.A.MARAPPAN (Died) Vs SULOCHANA DEVI on 26 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.227 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sathiyamangalam.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit. The 1 st respondent was the 5 th plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 7 were the defendants in the suit.

3. One K.A.Marappan filed the suit in O.S.No.227 of 2015 for specific performance. The said K.A.Marappan died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

4. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows: According to the plaintiffs, the deceased plaintiff K.A.Marappan is the brother of the defendants 1 to 5’s father. The suit property absolutely belonged to the defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a Sale Agreement in respect of the suit property on 28.02.2005 for a total Sale Consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had received a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- by way of advance and agreed to receive the balance sum of Rs.18,000/- within a period of four months and execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. In the plaint, it has been stated that in the case of the defendants not executing the Sale Deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a suit for specific performance and in the case of the plaintiff not willing to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, the defendants will lose their advance amount. According to the plaintiffs, they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs approached the defendants and requested to execute the registered Sale Deed on various occasions, but the defendants avoided the same. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the defendants through village elders in the Tamil Month “Maasi” and the defendants agreed to execute the Sale Deed on 24.06.2008. Inspite of the same, the defendants failed to execute the Sale Deed. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance.

5. The brief case of the defendants 1 to 4 is as follows: The defendants 1 to 4, while disputing the averments stated in the plaint, have also stated that the suit property originally belonged to their father and after his demise, the defendants 1 to 5 and one Muruganandam, who is the sister's son of the 3 rd defendant were entitled to the property. The 6 th defendant has no right or title over the suit property. The property belonging to the 6 th defendant was also included in the Sale Agreement, which was fraudulently executed by the deceased 1 st plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiffs without impleading Muruganandam, who has also got a share in the suit property, is not maintainable. The defendants' father borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the 1 st plaintiff K.A.Marappan and as a security, the defendants were forced to sign blank sheets in the presence of P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of Parliament. They promised to return the blank sheets after the re-payment of the loan amount of Rs.30,000/-. The said P.A.Saminathan was instrumental in executing the fabricated Sale Agreement. The plaintiffs were never ready and willing to get the sale completed. The property was under-valued in the suit. The present market value of the property would be more than Rs.50,00,000/-. In these circumstances, the defendants 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The brief case of the 6 th defendant is as follows: The 6 th defendant, while disputing the averments stated in the plaint, had also stated that he is not a party to the alleged Sale Agreement dated 28.02.2005, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek any relief as against him. In these circumstances, the 6 th defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, the 3 rd plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one Natarajan was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the plaintiffs, Ex.A1 Sale Agreement dated 28.02.2005 was marked. On the side of the defendants, the 4 th defendant was examined as D.W.1 and 2 documents, Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the above appeal.

9. Heard Mr.S.Sathishkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6.

10. At the time of admission of the above Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law arose for consideration:

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated the provisions of Section 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly, when the defendant has admitted the signature in the Agreement?

(ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the Sale Agreement has to be proved by the plaintiff after the admission of the defendant in his written statement that the signature was obtained by the plaintiff in blank papers and it was converted as Agreement in Ex.A1?

11. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the plaintiffs filed the suit based on Ex.A1 Sale Agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the deceased 1 st plaintiff K.A.Marappan, who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to

5. There is no dispute that the suit property belonged to the respondents 2 to 7. The said K.A.Marappan is the brother of the respondents 2 to 6's father. P.W.2 was said to be the attestor of Ex.A1 Sale Agreement. The defendants vehemently contended that Ex.A1 document is a fabricated document. They contended that the respondents' father borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from K.A.Marappan and they were forced to sign in the blank papers by the mediator P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of Parliament. The respondents 2 to 6 have also contended that in the blank papers obtained from them, the said K.A.Marappan, with the assistance of P.A.Saminathan, fabricated Ex.A1 Sale Agreement and filed the suit for specific performance. Further, the respondents 2 to 6 contended that though the 7 th respondent, who has got a share in the suit property has not signed Ex.A1 document, his share was also included in the suit.

12. With regard to the panchayat held in the presence of P.A.Saminathan, though P.W.1 disputed the panchayat, P.W.2, the attestor admitted that there was panchayat in the presence of P.A.Saminathan. When the respondents 2 to 6 have vehemently disputed the execution of Ex.A1 Sale Agreement, the burden of proof lies very much on the plaintiffs to establish the execution of the document.

13. On a reading of the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is clear that Ex.A1 document was prepared by utilizing the signed blank sheets obtained by K.A.Marappan in the presence of P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of Parliament. The respondents 2 to 6 have categorically stated that the deceased 1 st plaintiff obtained their signatures in the blank sheets in the presence of P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of Parliament and utilized the same for fabricating Ex.A1 Sale Agreement. The conflicting statements made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported the case of the respondents 2 to 6 and not the plaintiff’s case.

14. With regard to readiness and willingness, it is pertinent to note that inspite of the alleged payment of Rs.1,12,000/-, the appellants not even issued a single notice to the respondents for getting the Sale Deed executed. Except stating that the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract in the plaint, they have not established the said contention by any acceptable evidence. For getting a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff should always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the date of the

execution of the Sale Agreement. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, a decree for specific performance cannot be granted.

15. It is also pertinent to note that though Ex.A1 alleged Sale Agreement was said to have been executed on 28.02.2005 and that the deceased 1 st plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- out of the total Sale Consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-, he chose to file the suit only on 30.06.2008. It is also pertinent to note that the appellants' case was that four months time was granted for the execution of the Sale Deed and for making the paltry payment of Rs.18,000/-. It only proves the suspicion with regard to the execution of the Sale Agreement. In these circumstances, the alleged Sale Agreement marked as Ex.A1 is not a true and genuine document. That apart, the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove the mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness by adducing oral and documentary evidences. In these circumstances, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit.

16. I do not find any ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

17. Since I have dismissed the above Second Appeal, the appellants/ plaintiff 2 to 4 and the 1 st respondent/5 th plaintiff are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the respondents 2 to 6, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.02.2005 till the date of actual payment within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. pbl 21.01.2026 Index: Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Internet : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. The III Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The Subordinate Court, Sathiyamangalam.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Second Appeal No.2 of 2023 21.01.2026

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. This matter was taken up for hearing under the caption “For Being Mentioned” today at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that this Court by judgment dated 21.01.2026 dismissed the above Second Appeal. However, he would submit that in para 17, instead of mentioning that the respondents 2 to 6 are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 1st respondent/ 5th plaintiff, it was mentioned as “the appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the 1st respondent/ 5th plaintiff are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the respondents 2 to 6”. Hence, he prayed to amend the same and requested to issue fresh order copy.

3. Considering his submissions, Registry is directed to substitute para 17 as follows :- “17. Since I have dismissed the above Second Appeal, the respondents 2 to 7/defendants are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 1st respondent/5th plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.02.2005 till the date of actual payment within a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No costs.”

5. Registry is directed to incorporate above correction in the Judgment of this Court in S.A.No.2 of 2023 dated 21.01.2026 and issue fresh order copy to the appellant. 26.10.2026 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. rpp S.A. No.2 of 2023 26.10.2026