Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3684 (MAD)

Soma. Nachiappa Chettiar v. S. M. Muthuraman

2008-09-30

A.SELVAM

body2008
JUDGMENT Per A. SELVAM, J. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2000 passed in Original Suit No. 135 of 1997 by the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has been instituted Original Suit No. 135 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai for the relief of specific performance, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant. 3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as a tenant from the year 1970. The suit property is the absolute property of the defendant. In the year 1995, the plaintiff has come to know that the defendant is going to sell the suit property. On 24.5.1995 between the plaintiff and defendant a sale agreement has come into existence in respect of the suit property. The sale consideration has been fixed at Rs. 4,13,600/-. On the date of sale agreement, the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff by way of advance. On 6.6.1996, the defendant has received Rs. 3,25,000/- from the plaintiff and to that effect an endorsement has been made on the sale agreement. The plaintiff is bound to pay Rs. 38,600/-, towards sale consideration. The plaintiff has met the defendant on several occasions and asked him to execute a sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration. The defendant has purposefully evaded. On 30.7.1997, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice and thereby directed the defendant to come to Registrar Office on 4.8.1997 so as to execute a sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff has refused to receive the legal notice dated 30.7.1997. On 23.8.1997, the defendant has issued a notice containing false allegations. The plaintiff has given a befitting reply on 5.11.1997. Since the defendant has executed a sale agreement on 24.5.1995 in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant is bound to execute a sale deed in his favaour. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been filed for the relief indicated supra. 4. It is averred in the written statement filed on the side of the defendant that the defendant has not executed any sale agreement at any point of time in favour of the plaintiff much less on 24.5.1995. The defendant has not received anything from the plaintiff towards sale consideration. The entire sale agreement is nothing but false. 4. It is averred in the written statement filed on the side of the defendant that the defendant has not executed any sale agreement at any point of time in favour of the plaintiff much less on 24.5.1995. The defendant has not received anything from the plaintiff towards sale consideration. The entire sale agreement is nothing but false. It is also equally false to say that on 30.7.1997 the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendant and the defendant has purposely refused the same. The fact is that the defendant has let out the suit property to the plaintiff for monthly rent. The plaintiff has not paid monthly rent regularly and on 13.5.1997, the plaintiff has directed the defendant to come along with him so as to settle the monthly rents. Believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant has proceeded to the native village of the plaintiff by name Naduvadukottai and on the way to Naduvadukottai, the plaintiff has taken the defendant to an isolated place where five persons have been present. The plaintiff has identified the defendant to them, and the plaintiff and others have threatened the defendant at knife point and obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers and also on blank papers and next day, they released the defendant by saying that they would kill him if he divulged the act committed by them and subsequently, the defendant has given the complaint. On the basis of the complaint given by the defendant, the plaintiff has been enquired into and thereafter, the defendant has given telegrams to the police officials. On 23.8.1997, the defendant has given a notice to the plaintiff whereby he directed him to pay arrears of monthly rents. The plaintiff has given a false reply notice on 5.11.1997. The defendant is not bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after poring both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendant as appellant. 6. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after poring both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendant as appellant. 6. Before considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it cannot be forfended to perorate the following factual aspects as averred in the plaint as well as in the written statement. 7. In the plainit, has been stated that the suit property is the absolute property of the defendant and from the year 1970 the plaintiff has been enjoying the same as tenant and during 1995 the plaintiff has come to know that the defendant is going to sell the suit property. On 24.5.1995, a sale agreement has come into existence between the plaintiff and defendant and sale consideration has been fixed at Rs. 4,13,600/- and on the date of sale agreement, the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of advance and subsequently, the defendant has refused to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 24.5.1995 and thereafter, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 30.7.1997 and the defendant has purposely refused to receive the same and on 23.8.1997 the defendant has issued a legal notice to the plaintiff containing false allegations and the plaintiff has given a suitable reply notice dated 5.11.1997 and since the defendant has executed the suit sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff, whereby he has agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief indicated supra. 8. 8. It has been contended on the side of the defendant that the defendant has let out the suit property to the plaintiff for monthly rent and since the plaintiff has not paid monthly rent regularly, the defendant has approached him and the plaintiff under the guise of settling monthly rents, has asked the defendant to come to his native village by name Naduvadukottai and accordingly on 13.5.1997 both the plaintiff and defendant have proceeded towards Naduvadukottai and on the way to Naduvadukottai, the plaintiff has taken the defendant to an isolated place where five unknown persons are present and all of them have threatened to kill the defendant at knife point and coerced to put his signature on blank stamp papers and also on blank papers, and accordingly, he has put his signature and next day, they released him and he has given a police complaint and the plaintiff has also been enquired into and subsequently, the defendant has given telegrams to police officials and the blank stamp papers on which the defendant has put his signatures have been converted into a sale agreement dated 24.5.1995 and the same is not genuine and therefore, the defendant is not bound to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 9. As stated earlier, the trial Court after contemplating both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as prayed for. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has exercised various inert attempts so as to supplant the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. 9. As stated earlier, the trial Court after contemplating both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as prayed for. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has exercised various inert attempts so as to supplant the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. The first and foremost attempt made by the learned counsel appearing for appellant/defendant is that on 13.5.1997 under the guise of settling monthly rents the plaintiff has asked the defendant to come to his native village by name Naduvadukottai and on their way to Naduvadukottai, the plaintiff has taken him to an isolated place, wherein five unknown persons have been present and all of them have threatened and coerced the defendant to put his signatures on blank stamp papers and also on blank papers and in order to save his life, the defendant has put his signatures accordingly and the plaintiff has subsequently concocted the suit sale agreement dated 24.5.1995 and all the lines found in the suit sale agreement are cramped and one Advocate by name Kalaiyappan has also put his signature and seal, on the left margin of the suit sale agreement and since the recitals found in the suit sale agreement are in a state of cramped, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the averments made in the written statement are true, but the trial Court has not all considered the way in which the recitals of the suit sale agreement are found place and therefore, the entire judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 12. In order to buttress the contentions urged on the side of the appellant/defendant, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has accited the decision 1976 LW 420 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows; "The way in which the matter has been written up and the close writing which is visible to the naked eye and the effort taken in filing up the same gives the impression that the recitals were written up after it was signed by the contesting parties. Apart from cramping the material into the available stamp papers, the writer of the document takes the precaution of writing his name at the end of it, and this is obviously filled up so as to make out a case for the beneficiaries of the document at a future date when an occasion arises. The relief of specific performance either under the Common Law or under the Specific Relief Act is always a discretionary relief. To exercise such a judicial discretion, the party claiming such an equity should be entitled to such an equity. The plaintiff is not entitled to it." 13. The suit sale agreement has been marked as Exhibit A-1. The recitals found in Exhibit A-1 have been typed. The recitals found in Exhibit A-1 are not found in a cramped way. In Exhibit A-1, two persons namely C.Raman and K.R. Ashokan have put their signatures. In fact, the signatures and addresses of the said witnesses have covered the major portion of the beneath of page No. 2. Since there is no place so as to put the signature and seal of the said Advocate by name Kalaiyappan, he put his seal and signature on the left margin of page No. 2 of Exhibit A-1. Therefore, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that cramped writing is not in existence in Exhibit A-1. 14. In the decision referred to supra, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the way in which the matter has been written up and close writing which is visible to the naked eye and the effort taken in filling up the same gives the impression that the recitals were written up after it was signed by the contesting parties. It is an everlasting principle of law that each decision has to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, no such cramped recitals are found place in Exhibit A-1. It has already been pointed out that the witnesses found in Exhibit A-1 have put their signatures and addresses, and the same have covered the major portion of the beneath of Page No. 2 of Exhibit A-1 and due to that the Advocate mentioned supra has put his seal and signature on the left margin of page No. 2 of Exhibit A-1. Simply because the said Advocate has put his seal and signature on the left margin of page No. 2 of Exhibit A-1, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that Exhibit A-1 contains cramped recitals and therefore, the same has come into existence as per the averments made in the written statement. In the light of the discussion made earlier, it is very clear that the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant is sans merit. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has also argued that the both the plaintiff and defendant are residing in Devakottai and in Exhibit A-1 two witnesses namely Raman and Ashokan have put their signatures as witnesses and the said Raman is a resident of Valangavayal and the said Ashokan is a resident of Kalluvayal and both of them are not having connection whatsoever with the plaintiff and defendant and since the persons who are not the residents of Devakottai have put their signatures as witnesses in Exhibit A-1, the Court can easily come to conclusion that Exhibit A-1 has come into existence in a suspicious circumstances and that too in the circumstances mentioned in the written statement, but the trial Court has not at all considered the same and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the discretionary relief of specific performance. 16. Of course it is true that the said witness viz., Raman is a resident of Valangavayal and the other witness viz., Ashokan is a resident of Kalluvayal. The said Ashokan has been examined as P.W.2. During the course of chief examination, he has stated that he is residing in Devakottai and he knows both the plaintiff and defendant and further he deposed that Exhibit A-1 has come into existence between the plaintiff and defendant and on the date of Exhibit A-1, the defendant has received Rs. 50,000/- by way of advance from the plaintiff and on 6.6.1996 the defendant has received Rs. 3,25,000/- from the plaintiff and further Exhibit A-1 has been written in the Office of Notary Public by name Kalaiyappan. 17. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the evidence of the defendant. The defendant has been examined as D.W.1. 50,000/- by way of advance from the plaintiff and on 6.6.1996 the defendant has received Rs. 3,25,000/- from the plaintiff and further Exhibit A-1 has been written in the Office of Notary Public by name Kalaiyappan. 17. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the evidence of the defendant. The defendant has been examined as D.W.1. During the course of cross-examination, he has clearly stated that all the signatures found in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are his signatures and further he has stated in his evidence that one of the witnesses found in Exhibit A-1 by name Raman is close to him and his native village is Valangavayal. Since the witnesses namely Raman and Ashokan are known to the plaintiff and defendant, their service has been utilished in Exhibit A-1. Further, normally known persons have been utilished as witnesses. Simply because persons who are the residents of Devakottai have not been cited as witnesses in Exhibit A-1, the Court cannot automatically come to a conclusion that Exhibit A-1 is a concocted document. It has already been pointed out that one of the witnesses by name Raman is very close to the defendant. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant is quite contra to the evidence adduced by P.W.2 and D.W.1. Under the said circumstances, the same can be eschewed. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has also contended that the specific case of the plaintiff is that Exhibit A-1 has been executed in the presence of Advocate/Notary by name Kalaiyappan and he is having practice at Karaikudi and in Devakottai so many notaries are available and since Exhibit A-1 is a concocted document, the role of the said Advocate/Notary has been utilished by the plaintiff and further the said Advocate/Notary has not been examined on the side of the plaintiff and that itself has militated the entire contention of the plaintiff and the trial Court has failed to look into the same. 19. It is an admitted fact that the Advocate/Notary by name Kalaiyappan is having his practice at Karaikudi. Of-course it is true that he has not been examined on the side of the plaintiff. At this juncture, the evidence of the defendant has to be looked into. 19. It is an admitted fact that the Advocate/Notary by name Kalaiyappan is having his practice at Karaikudi. Of-course it is true that he has not been examined on the side of the plaintiff. At this juncture, the evidence of the defendant has to be looked into. The defendant has clearly stated in his evidence during the course of cross-examination that in respect of the suit property an agreement has come into existence between him and one Muthu, wife of Elango, in the presence of the said Advocate/Notary by name Kalaiyappan and therefore, it is quite clear that the said Advocate/Notary by name Kalaiyappan is a known person to the defendant and only under the said circumstances, Exhibit A-1 has been executed in the presence of the said Advocate/Notary viz., Kalaiyappan. As stated earlier, the said Advocate/Notary by name Kalaiayppan has not been examined on the side of the plaintiff so as to prove the due execution and also passing of consideration of Exhibit A-1. One of the witnesses by name Ashokan has been examined on the side of the plaintiff as P.W.2. He has clearly stated in his evidence that Exhibit A-1 has come into existence between the plaintiff and defendant on 24.5.1995 and the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the date of execution of Exhibit A-1 from the plaintiff. Further, no motive is in existence between P.W.2 and defendant, and therefore, there is no circumstance under which P.W.2 has given false evidence against the defendant. Further, non-examination of the said Advocate/Notary viz., Kalaiyappan has not at all impinged the case of the plaintiff and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant is of no use. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has also equally contended that on 24.5.1995 the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,13,600/- and to that effect Exhibit A-1 has come into existence and in order to prove Exhibit A-1, the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and one of the attesting witnesses by name Ashokan has been examined as P.W.2. and therefore, Exhibit A-1 has been duly proved by the plaintiff and further on 6.6.1996 the defendant has received a sum of Rs. and therefore, Exhibit A-1 has been duly proved by the plaintiff and further on 6.6.1996 the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- from the plaintiff and to that effect Exhibit A-2, endorsement has come into existence in Exhibit A-1 and one of the witnesses found in Exhibit A-2 has been examined as P.W.2 and he has also clearly stated in his evidence that on 6.6.1996 the plaintiff has given Rs. 3,25,000/- to the defendant and to that effect Exhibit A-2 has come into existence and he put his signature along with P.W.3 viz., Arumugam and therefore, the plaintiff has positively proved his case and the trial Court after considering all the evidence available on record has rightly decreed the suit and therefore, the present suit deserves dismissal. 21. It has already been pointed out that in order to prove Exhibit A-1, P.W.2 has given picturesque evidence and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, P.W.3 has also given equal evidence to the effect that Exhibit A-2 has come into existence and on the date of Exhibit A-2, the defendant has received the said sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-. Therefore, it is quite clear that Exhibits A-1 and A-2 have been positively proved by the plaintiff. 22. Now, the Court has to analyse the story trotted out on the side of the appellant/defendant. In the written statement as well as in the evidence of the defendant, it has been stated that the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as tenant of the defendant and since the plaintiff has not paid monthly rent, regularly to the defendant, he has approached him to settle monthly rents and the plaintiff has asked him to come to his native village by name Naduvadukottai so as to see accounts for settling the alledge arrears of monthly rents and believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant has proceeded to Naduvadukottai on 13.5.1997 along with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has taken him to an isolated place, where five unknown persons are present and all of them have obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank stamp papers and also on the blank papers by exercising threat and coercion and subsequently converted the same into sale agreement. 23. On the side of the plaintiff, the contentions urged on the side of the defendant have been clearly refuted. 23. On the side of the plaintiff, the contentions urged on the side of the defendant have been clearly refuted. Therefore, the entire burden lies upon the defendant to prove the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has also advanced his entire argument only on the basis of the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997. The specific averment made in the written statement as well as the evidence of the defendant is that the plaintiff and others have obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers and also on blank papers by way of threatening him at knife point. 25. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the signatures found in Exhibits A-1 and A-2. The entire sale agreement dated 24.5.1995 has been marked as Exhibit A-1. On the first and second pages of Exhibit A-1, the signatures of the defendant are found place at the bottom. In Exhibit A-2, the signature of the defendant is found place below 1-3/4 inch from the top. From the places on which the signatures of the defendant are found place in Exhibits A-1 and A-2, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that all the signatures found in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 have been written by the defendant at the time of execution of Exhibits A-1 and A-2. If really the story trotted out by the defendant is true, definitely, the signature of the defendant which is found in Exhibit A-2 would not have been written below 1-3/4 inch from the top. Therefore, it is quite clear that the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997 is nothing but brainwave of the defendant and the same cannot be given weight to. 26. Therefore, it is quite clear that the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997 is nothing but brainwave of the defendant and the same cannot be given weight to. 26. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has repeatedly contended that the occurrence mentioned in the written statement has taken place on 13.5.1997 and on 14.5.1997 the defendant has issued three telegrams to police officials and the same have been marked as Exhibits B-5 to B-7, wherein it has been clearly stated that on 13.5.1997 the plaintiff has abducted the defendant to an unknown place and obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers and also on blank papers by using force and intimidation, and therefore, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the occurrence has taken place on 13.5.1997 and the Court below has not at all given due weight to Exhibits B-5 to B-7 and on that score also, the entire case of the plaintiff can easily be rejected. 27. It is an admitted fact that the defendant has given a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakottai and the same has been marked as Exhibit B-3, wherein at paragraph 7, it has been stated that the plaintiff and five others have threatened the defendant for getting his signatures and some of them have attacked the defendant and the defendant has raised queer noise and subsequently, one person has tried to attack the defendant by using a knife and in order to save his life, the defendant has put his signatures on blank stamp papers and also on blank papers. If really the occurrence has taken place on 13.5.1997 as alleged on the side of the defendant, definitely, the defendant would have given a police complaint against the plaintiff and five unknown persons in the concerned police station. But, no such police complaint has been given. In the written statement, it has been stated that a police complaint has been given on which the plaintiff has been enquired into. But, to utter dismay, no such police complaint has been marked on the side of the defendant. Therefore, it is quite clear that the defendant has failed to prove the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997. 28. But, to utter dismay, no such police complaint has been marked on the side of the defendant. Therefore, it is quite clear that the defendant has failed to prove the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997. 28. As adverted to earlier, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has made his exertion only on the basis of Exhibits B-5 to B-7. Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are not the originals of the telegrams alleged to have been issued by the defendant to police officials. Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are certified copies. At this juncture, a nice legal question arises as to whether Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are admissible in evidence. 29. Sections 88 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the presumption as to telegraphic messages and the same reads as follows; "The Court may presume that a message, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a message delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be sent; but the Court shall not make any presumption so as to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission." 30. The provision of Section 88 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 can be vivisected into two parts as follows; (a) The Court may presume to the extent that a message has been forwarded form a telegraphic office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed. (b) The Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission. 31. 31.In the instant case, as stated earlier, Exhibits B-5 to B­-7 are not the originals of the telegrams alleged to have been issued by the defendant to the police officials. Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are certified copies. 32. 32.In AIR 1997 AP 83 it has been held that under Section 88 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, the presumption is limited to what is expressively provided in this Section. The form handed over into post office by the sender and not the form delivered by the post office to the addressee, is the original of the telegram. Either the original must be produced by an official from the post office concerned or proof of its destruction given before a copy can be admitted as secondary evidence. 33. The form handed over into post office by the sender and not the form delivered by the post office to the addressee, is the original of the telegram. Either the original must be produced by an official from the post office concerned or proof of its destruction given before a copy can be admitted as secondary evidence. 33. From the close reading of the decision as cited supra, it is made clear that the form handed over into the concerned post office is the original of the telegram. Either the original must be produced by an official from the post office concerned or before adducing secondary evidence proof of destruction of original is required. 34. In the instant case, as stated in so many places that Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are certified copies of the telegrams alleged to have been issued by the defendant. Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are nothing but secondary evidence. But absolutely there is no evidence to the effect that the originals of Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are not in existence and further Exhibits B-5 to B-7 have not been marked through the concerned official. Therefore, virtually Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are inadmissible in evidence. Since Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are inadmissible in evidence, the Court need not give much adherence to the same. 35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision (2008) 6 MLJ 1258 (NOC) : (2008) 3 LW 252 , wherein this Court has held that the relief under specific performance is a discretionary relief and even if a doubt arises about the agreement of sale between the parties, the relief could be refused to be granted. 36. In the decision referred to supra, the specific contention of the defendant therein is that the plaintiff is a village Panchayat President and there is a dispute between the family of the defendant and the family of one Gurubaran on account of the marriage of the defendant's sons Parasuraman with the Gurubaran's sister Uma. Consequently, the defendant's wife Saroja has been brutally murdered on 4.3.1998. A criminal case was prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1999 before the Additional Sessions Court, Villupuram against Gurubaran and eight others. The accused in the Sessions case are all related to the plaintiff. The defendant is the prime witness in the murder case. Consequently, the defendant's wife Saroja has been brutally murdered on 4.3.1998. A criminal case was prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1999 before the Additional Sessions Court, Villupuram against Gurubaran and eight others. The accused in the Sessions case are all related to the plaintiff. The defendant is the prime witness in the murder case. The plaintiff is also one of the witnesses on the prosecution side. As the plaintiff is the president of the Village Panchayat, he has been exerting pressure on the defendant to give evidence in a manner favourable to the accused. The defendant was not agreeable to such course and hence the plaintiff and other men of the accused got the agreement of sale executed by him. Thus, the agreement of sale was obtained out of threat and coercion and undue influence. The defendant never intended to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff. The defendant, out of fear and compulsion, had no other option except to sign the document and to have it registered fearing danger to his life. Under the said circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that the sale agreement in question is not genuine and ultimately rejected the relief claimed by the plaintiff. 37. In the instant case, as noted down earlier, the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997 has not been positively proved by the defendant. The sheet anchor of the case of the defendant is Exhibits B5 to B7. It has already been pointed out that Exhibits B-5 to B-7 are not at all admissible in evidence and even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that if really the occurrence has taken place on 13.5.1997 as alleged on the side of the defendant, definitely, the defendant would not have observed obmutescence without lodging a police complaint immediately. Therefore, it is quite clear that the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 13.5.1997 has not at all been proved by the defendant and therefore, the facts found in the present case are totally alien to the facts of the case mentioned in the decision referred to above. Under the said circumstances, the dictum given in the said decision cannot be followed in the present case. 38. Under the said circumstances, the dictum given in the said decision cannot be followed in the present case. 38. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has advanced his residual argument stating that the alleged sale agreement has come into existence on 24.5.1995 and the plaintiff for the first time has issued Exhibit A-3 notice dated 30.7.1997 (sic) to the defendant and Exhibit A-3 has not contained necessary particulars with regard to total consideration, advance of Rs. 50,000/- and part payment of Rs. 3,25,000/- and therefore, Exhibit A-3 is totally bereft of particulars and on that ground also, the Court can reject the contention urged on the side of the plaintiff. 39. Of course, it is true that in Exhibit A-3 total consideration mentioned in Exhibit A-1, advance of Rs. 50,000/- and part payment of Rs. 3,25,000/-, have not been mentioned. In Exhibit A-3 it has been simply mentioned that on 24.5.1995, the defendant has executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is bound to pay Rs. 38,600/- and he is ready to pay the same on 4.8.1997 and therefore, the defendant is directed to be present at Devakottai Sub Registrar Office on 4.8.1997 at 10.30 a.m. As stated earlier, Exhibit A-3 does not contain the above particulars. Simply because, Exhibit A-3 does not contain the above particulars, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that Exhibit A-1 sale agreement is nothing but a concoction. Exhibit A-3 is a legal notice given to the defendant, wherein it has been clearly stated that on 24.5.1995, the defendant has executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and that itself is sufficient to constitute that there is a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and therefore, the residual argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant is also sans merit. 40. Before parting with this appeal, this Court would like to sum up the following circumstances which are favourable to the plaintiff; (a) The plaintiff has proved the due execution and also passing of consideration of Exhibits A-1 and A-2 by way of examining P.Ws.2 and 3. (b) The places on which the signatures of the defendant are found place in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are the strong circumstances for coming to a conclusion that Exhibit A-1 is a genuine document. (b) The places on which the signatures of the defendant are found place in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are the strong circumstances for coming to a conclusion that Exhibit A-1 is a genuine document. (c) Even though the defendant has admitted in his evidence that one of the witnesses by name Raman is very close to him, he has not been examined on the side of the defendant so as to prove that Exhibit A-1 is a concocted document. (d) No motive is in existence between the defendant and PWs.2 & 3 and that itself has paved the way for coming to a conclusion that the evidence of PWs.2 & 3 are genuine and trustworthy. 41. The infirmities found on the side of the defendant can also be summed up as follows; (a) The occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 13.5.1997 has not been proved on the side of the defendant. (b) Failure to give police complaint by the defendant immediately after the alleged occurrence itself has debilitated the entire contention urged on the side of the defendant. (c) Non-examination of one of the witnesses by name Raman even though he is close to the defendant, is also fatal to the contention raised on the side of the defendant. (d) Failure to issue legal notice so as to direct the plaintiff to hand over the alleged blank stamp papers and blank papers on which the defendant has put up his signatures, is also fatal to the entire contention urged on the side of the defendant. 42. By eschewing all the infirmities found on the side of the appellant/defendant, the Court cannot come to a conclusion even for a minute that Exhibit A-1 is nothing but concoction. 43. In the light of the foregoing enunciation of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court has not found even an iota of force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant. The trial Court after ex-cogitating all the evidence available on record, has rightly decreed the suit. In view of the foregoing elucidation, this Court has not found even a flimsy ground to make interference with the well merited judgment passed by the trial Court and altogether the present appeal suit deserves dismissal. 44. In fine, this appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. In view of the foregoing elucidation, this Court has not found even a flimsy ground to make interference with the well merited judgment passed by the trial Court and altogether the present appeal suit deserves dismissal. 44. In fine, this appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. The judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 135 of 1997 by the Subordinate Court, Devakottai are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.