HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA S.A.(MD).No.651 of 2010 1.Varghese [Died] 2.Rani 3.Sahaya Chandran 4.Sasi Malar 5.Arul Solan 6.Mary Sabitha 7.Sasi Ajitha … Plaintiffs / Appellants **Appellants 2 to 7
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON 02.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
S.A.(MD).No.651 of 2010
1.Varghese [Died]
2.Rani
3.Sahaya Chandran
4.Sasi Malar
5.Arul Solan
6.Mary Sabitha
7.Sasi Ajitha … Plaintiffs / Appellants
**Appellants 2 to 7 brought on record
as LRs of the deceased sole plaintiff
vide order dated 14.11.2016 made in
CMP[MD].No.7388/2016 in SA.[MD].No.651/2010
Vs
1.Amalapushpam
2.Palthasar [Died]
3.Sahayamary
4.Leely Pushpam
5.P.Reegan
6.P.Shiny … Respondents / Defendants
**RR 4 to 6 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased 2nd respondent vide
order dated 04.11.2022 made in
CMP.[MD].Nos.9490, 9492 & 9494/2022
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in AS.No.156/2004 dated 31.03.2010, on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree in OS.No.82/2001, dated 08.06.2004, on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For R1 : Mr.B.Christopher
For RR3 to 6 : Ms.J.Anandavalli
R2-Died
JUDGMENT
1. The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.156 of 2004, dated 31.03.2010, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabhapuram, made in O.S.No.82 of 2001, dated 08.06.2004.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
3. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit property is the land in S.No.447/6, measuring around 10 cents in Keezhkulam Village, Vilavangode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District.
Facts in Brief:-
4. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff entered into an Agreement of Sale with the 1st defendant under Ex.A1 on 04.08.2000 for sale of the suit property in S.No.447/6, Keezhkulam Village, Vilavankode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District, measuring 10 cents, for a sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. The plaintiff claims to have been put into possession pursuant to the Sale Agreement, since he had paid the entire sale consideration. However, as there was a mortgage in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant, the Sale Deed was agreed to be executed within a year. Since the 1st defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed, in terms of the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance.
5. The 1st defendant filed a separate written statement and the defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement.
6. The 1st defendant, is the owner of the property and defendants 2 and 3 are the subsequent purchasers. All the three defendants in one voice stated that the suit Sale Agreement was a fabricated document and that, no consideration passed under the same. They also contended that possession was not given to the plaintiff as pleaded by him. The defendants further contended that the 1st defendant executed a Mortgage Deed, in respect of 27 cents, in S.Nos.447, 447/6 in favour of the 2nd defendant and pursuant thereto, handed over possession of the entire extent of 27 cents to the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the property was sold by the 1st defendant to the defendants 2 and 3, under two Sale Deeds dated 23.04.2001. After recovering possession of the suit property from the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant put the 3rd defendant in possession of the property in S.No.447/5. The defendants contended that the sale in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 was bona fide and for valuable consideration. The defendants also contended that the original title documents were also handed over to them by the 1st defendant. The defendants therefore submitted that there were no merits in the suit and hence, the same deserved to be dismissed.
7. The Trial Court, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, found that the Suit Sale Agreement was a forged document and that the defendants 2 and 3 were bona fide purchasers for value. The Trial Court further found that the legal notice sent by the plaintiff, was received by the 1st defendant only on 24.04.2001, and prior to that, on 23.04.2001 itself, the 1st defendant had executed the Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. The Trial Court found that the legal notice was issued fraudulently and only after the sale in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by the 1st defendant. The Trial Court also found that the 1st defendant handed over the original title deeds to the defendants 2 and 3 and that, the defendants were put in the possession of the property by the 1st defendant. On the basis of such findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred AS.No.156/2024.
8. The Appeal Suit was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court by concurring with the findings of the Trial Court on all aspects referred to above. Aggrieved against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiff is before this Court by filing the above Second Appeal for the aforesaid relief.
9. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:-
(a)Whether the Courts below are justified in law in rejecting the relief of specific performance without giving a finding regarding signatures of DW1 in Ex.A1?
(b)Whether the Courts below are justified in law in holding that Ex.A1 is the fraudulent document without considering Ex.A4, reply notice and Ex.A5-plaint in OS.No.117/2001?
(c)Whether the Courts below are justified in law in holding that the defendants 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers, since the 1st defendant filed a written statement supporting them and remained exparte thereafter?
10. Both the learned counsels submitted written arguments in the Second Appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the written submissions filed by him, submitted that both the Courts below erred in holding that the suit Sale Agreement [Ex.A1] was not a valid document overlooking that on admission of execution of the Sale Agreement in the reply notice [Ex.A5], the burden shifted on the defendants to prove that the signatures were obtained from her by coercion. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proving the validity of the suit Sale Agreement by examining the attesting witnesses and the scribe and also that the surrounding circumstances supported the due execution and validity of the suit Sale Agreement. The learned counsel submitted that the defendants 2 and 3 were not a bona fide purchasers for value as they had prior knowledge of the Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff. On possession, the learned counsel submitted that the 2nd defendant was not in possession of the property. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the findings of the Courts below on all the three aspects, namely, validity of the Sale Agreement [Ex.A1], the bona fide purchase by defendants 2 and 3 and possession, were erroneous and liable to be set aside.
12. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st defendant, on the basis of the written submissions, submitted that the evidence on record amply proved that Ex.A1 was a forged document. The learned counsel submitted that the initial burden was on the plaintiff to prove the validity of the Sale Agreement. The learned counsel submitted that the admission of the signature of the 1st defendant in blank papers as stated in the reply notice, was irrelevant since the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the suit Sale Agreement and also no adverse presumption could be drawn against the 1st defendant’s for not entering the witness box. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff had come to Court with unclean hands and with false plea and therefore, the Courts below were right in non suiting the plaintiff.
13. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
Substantial Questions of Law No.1 and 2:-
14. To prove the suit Sale Agreement, dated 04.08.2000 [Ex.A1], the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 apart from examining the attestors and the scribe as Pws.2 to 4. The suit Sale Agreement was marked as Ex.A1.
15. The relevant recitals of Ex.A1 are as follows:-
/////vd;dbtd;why; ehd; elj;jp te;j khjhe;jpu jtizr;rPl;L rk;ke;jkhf vdf;F Vw;gl;l fld; jPu;f;F fhhpaj;jpw;fhf ic& th;f;fP!; mth;fsplkpUe;J ehd; buhf;fk; fldhf th’;fpd U:gha; 200000/ ,e;j U:gha; ,uz;L yl;rKk; ehd; buhf;fkhf bgw;wpUg;gjhy; vdJ tifa[k; vd; bgahpy; Kd;rpiw rhh;gjptfk; thapyhf 1997y; 1103 Mk; vz;zhf gjpt[ bra;J th’;fpd fpua Mtzg;go chpikg;gl;lJk; fPH;Fsk; tpy;ny$; tif 1526 Mk; vz; gl;lhtpy; fz;lJk; uP rh;nt vz; 447-6 (ehD}w;wp ehw;gj;jp VHpy; cl;gphpt[ Mwpy;) bfhz;lJk; Fzkzp mDgtj;jpw;F nkw;Fk; VRjh!d; iftrj;jpw;F tlf;Fk; vdJ iftrk; ,Ug;g[ kPjp brhj;jpw;F fpHf;Fk; nyhg;g!; tiff;F bjw;Fkha[s;s vy;iff;F cl;gl;l 10 brd;l; brhj;ij Kd;Fwpg;gpl;l ,uz;L byl;rk; U:gha;f;F ,d;WKjy; xUtUl fhyhtjpf;Fs; fpuag;gj;jpuk; vGjp gjpt[ bra;J bfhLf;fyhk; vd;W cWjp TWfpnwd;.
Tlhky; Kd;Fwpg;gpl;l 10 brd;l;Lk; rh;nt 447-5 y; bfhz;l 10 1-2 brz;l;Lk; nrh;j;J ehd; Kd;rpiw rhh;gjptfk; thapyhf fhsptpshfk; tPl;oy; mf!;j;jpd; g[jy;td; gy;jrhh; bgaUf;F gjpt[ bra;J bfhLj;Js;s
