(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2018 made in A.S.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2005 made in O.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.)

1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2018 passed in A.S.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2005 made in O.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

2. The first appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance directing the defendant to execute sale deed in respect of suit properties in favour of the plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

4. Case of the plaintiff:

               The suit properties item Nos.1 and 2 belonged to the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit properties measuring a total extent of 1 acre 40 cents to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent. Total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.4,20,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance on 13.02.2004 and both the plaintiff and the defendant entered into sale agreement on the same day on 13.02.2004. The defendant surrendered possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff and agreed to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. The defendant is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. Considering the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff has not insisted to hand over the original title deed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff has been requesting the defendant to execute a sale deed from May 2004, but the defendant has been postponing by saying some lame excuses. On 27.05.2004, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was taking steps to alienate the suit properties to third parties. Hence, on 28.05.2004, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant, who sent reply notice, dated 02.06.2004, with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

5. Case of the defendant as per Written Statement and Additional Written Statement:

               The defendant married the sister of the plaintiff. The defendant never entered into any sale agreement with the plaintiff. He never received the alleged advance of Rs.4,00,000/-, and he never surrendered possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff had no means to pay such amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The plaintiff, his brother Jacob and one Chellappa colluded together and created the alleged sale agreement, which is a forged one. The signature found on the sale agreement is not of the defendant. The alleged sale agreement is an unregistered one, and it is inadmissible U/s.35 of the Indian Stamp Act, U/s.17 of the Indian Registration Act and U/s.54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit properties fetched market value of more than Rs.10,000/- per cent. The suit properties are lying adjacent to the properties of the plaintiff and also the defendant purchased the same from the father of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff wanted to knock off the suit properties, for which the defendant was not willing. The plaintiff filed this suit on 07.06.2004, forging the deed of sale agreement and he also filed another suit in O.S.No.1038 of 2004 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, on 24.08.2004 for injunction. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of specific performance, as there was no contract for sale. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before the trial Court the following issues were framed:-

               (1)Whether the sale agreement is true and valid?

               (2)To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

Additional Issue:-

               Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

7. During trial, on the plaintiff's side, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.27 were marked. On the defendant's side D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.29 were marked.

8. After hearing both and considering evidences of both sides, the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil, concluded that the plaintiff has proved the sale agreement and his case, hence, decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial Court granted the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff by passing judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2005.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.64 of 2004, the defendant preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both sides and after considering evidences & findings of the trial Court, passed judgment, dated 14.03.2018, dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2006 by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2004.

10. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the defendant preferred this second appeal and the same has been admitted on 10.03.2021 on the following substantial questions of law:-

               1.Whether the Courts below were right in decreeing the suit for specific performance and injunction, when Ex.A.1, agreement is an unregistered instrument entered into, after introduction of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, in view of the judgment of this Court, reported in (2013) 3 CTC Page 477?

               2. Whether the Courts below were right in not framing any issue relating to the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff as mandated under Section 16(c)of the Specific Relief Act?

11. Heard both sides and perused the available records in this Second Appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the suit properties measuring 1 acre 40 cents consisting two items. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant offered to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent for total sale consideration was Rs.4,20,000/- and they entered into Ex.A.1 sale agreement on 13.02.2004 and also alleged that Rs.4,00,000/- was given as advance on that date. The plaintiff had no means to pay such huge advance amount. The plaintiff stated that he borrowed loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from his brother Jacob and the wife of the plaintiff is lecturer and also the plaintiff was having chit fund amount. But the plaintiff has not proved the means as stated by him. In fact, the defendant married the sister of the plaintiff and purchased the suit property from the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff intended to take back the property and so, plaintiff asked the defendant to sell the suit property to him, but the defendant refused to sell the same. The defendant has not executed any such sale agreement. The alleged sale agreement was created by the plaintiff, his brother Jacob and one Chellappa. The sale agreement is forged one. The sale agreement is an unregistered one. The plaintiff has also pleaded that possession was conveyed. As per Section 49 of the Registration Act, the sale agreement must be registered. Moreover, Section 17(1A) has been inserted in the Registration Act as per Act 48 of 2001, which came to effect from 24.09.2001. The plaintiff alleged that the sale agreement was executed on 01.02.2004. Hence, Ex.A.1 - sale agreement cannot be taken into consideration as evidence, but the Courts below considered the same and held that the sale agreement is proved by the plaintiff. In the nature of the case on hand, this Court has already decided that if a sale agreement affecting immovable property has to be registered U/s.17(1A) of the Registration Act. So, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not a signatory to Ex.A.1. The plaintiff is an advocate, he forged Ex.A.1 with the help of his brother Jacob and another. The attesting witness stated that he did not know the signature of the defendant. The Court below merely compared the signature of Ex.A.1 with Ex.A.18 and come to the conclusion in favour of the plaintiff. In the absence of expert opinion, the Court cannot come to conclusion. Moreover, in the alleged sale agreement, there is no time fixed for completion of contract. Moreover, the plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness. The trial Court has not framed any issue regarding willingness and readiness and also has not discussed the above aspects. So also, the first Appellate Court has not determined on that point. Therefore, the second appeal may be allowed.

13. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following citations:

               (1) 2013(3) CTC 477 Palaniammal and Others /v/ K.R.C.Anbalagan & Others, it is held in paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 24 as follows:

               22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that explanation to Section 49 of the Registration Act which deals with the effects of non-registration, any unregistered document relating to an immovable may be received in evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence for collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The learned senior counsel also submitted that under sub section (v) of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, any document other than the document specified, in Section 17(1-A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property but, merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest. Therefore, the learned senior counsel contended that even an unregistered document can be produced as an evidence in a suit for specific performance.

               23. As per Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, an agreement for sale relating to any immovable property, for reaping the benefits of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered. An intending purchaser, who enters into an agreement for sale with the owner of the property and got delivery of possession of the property, cannot claim the benefits under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act unless the deed of agreement for sale which contemplates such delivery of possession is registered. But the said provision shall not affect the right of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. It is not as if all the agreements for sale referring to instance of delivery of possession shall be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act. Only when the agreement for sale which speaks about delivery of possession is filed to claim benefit of part performance as contemplated under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, Court will have to find out whether the document was registered or not. If such document was not registered then the benefit of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act cannot be claimed by the prospective purchaser of the property.

               24. In the case on hand, the 1st plaintiff claimed benefit under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiffs have sought for the Relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the 1st plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties which he got under Exs.A1 and A3 documents. When the 1st plaintiff sought for protection claiming benefits under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, under Section 17(1-A) of the Indian Registration Act, Exs.A1 and A3 documents must have been registered. Since both the documents viz., Exs.A1 and A3 were not registered, the plaintiffs cannot rely upon these documents. If the plaintiffs had not claimed benefits under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act seeking for protection with regard to possession which they got under Exs.A1 and A3 documents, in that case, the registration is not mandatory. But in the case on hand, since the 1st plaintiff had sought for a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property based on Exs.A1 and A3 documents. Therefore, the documents must have been registered under section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act. Since Ex.A1 was not registered, the plaintiffs cannot rely upon the said document. Similarly, in the case of Ex.A3 - Assignment Deed, it was alleged that possession was handed over to the 1st plaintiff by the 2nd plaintiff under the said document. As already stated, since the 1st plaintiff had sought for the relief of permanent injunction, in respect of his possession based on Ex.A3 - Assignment Deed, the document must have been registered under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act. Since the document was not registered, the 1st plaintiff cannot rely upon the said document and file the suit for specific performance based on the said document. Therefore, even if Exs.A1 and A3 are true and genuine documents, the said documents cannot be relied upon by the plaintiffs for the reason that they were not registered under Section 17(1-A) of the Indian Registration Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 49 of the Registration Act are not applicable to the present case.

               (2) 2023 (10) SCC 725 in R.Hemalatha /v/ Kashthuri case, in paragraph No.25 it is held as

               “25. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the proviso to Section 49 came to be inserted vide Act 21 of 1929 and thereafter, section 17(1-A) came to be inserted by Act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is made compulsorily to be registered, if they have been executed on or after 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then they shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53-A. So, the exception to the proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to the documents other than referred to in Section 17(1-A) shall be applicable.”

               (3) 2022 SCC Online SC 1545 – V.S.Ramakrishnan /v/ P.M.Muhmmed Ali, wherein it is held in paragraph No.8 as follows:

               ''8.Now the findings and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court refusing to pass a decree for specific performance is concerned it appears that though there was no specific issue framed by the learned Trial Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has given the findings on the same and has non-suited the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to make the full balance consideration on or before 12.01.2006. Such a finding could not have been given by the learned Trial Court without putting the plaintiff to notice and without framing a specific issue on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same. On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. On remand the parties be permitted to lead the evidence on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, more particularly, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the full consideration and whether the plaintiff was having sufficient funds and/or could have managed the balance sale consideration.

               (4) 2022 SCC Online Mad 6357 (Youlande Louis (Nee Sinnas) and Another vs. Celestine Pushparaj and Others., wherein it is held in paragraph No.18 as follows:

               “18.This Court has no quarrel with any of the propositions and propose to reiterate the following aspects to be kept in mind while considering expert’s evidence regarding handwriting.

               (i) when expert opinion is obtained, the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open to whether the opinion may be acted upon. The Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether the writings are by the same person.

               (ii)…

               (iii) The expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The expert is not expected to act as Judge or Jury as the real function of the expert is to put before the Court all the materials scientific criteria together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion so that the Court may form its own judgment about the credibility, accuracy and evidentiary value of expert opinion.”

14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the appellant/defendant approached the plaintiff to sell the suit property as he was in need of money for admitting his son in medical college. The plaintiff agreed for the same by fixing the sale consideration at Rs.4,20,000/- and out of the sale consideration, he paid Rs.4,00,000/-. The defendant admitted the receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- and agreed to execute the sale deed after receipt of Rs.20,000/- and executed Ex.A.1. So it is executed only for enforcing the contract. According to the proviso to Section 49, such document in suit for specific performance need not be registered and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Hemalatha /v/ Kashthuri case in 2023 (2) MWN (Civil) 473 (plaintiff's side (2023) 10 SCC 725). The plaintiff proved his means by way of his savings and savings of his wife, who was working as lecturer. Further, the plaintiff borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from his brother. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff examined P.W.2 and P.W.4. The defendant has not denied that wife of the plaintiff was working as lecturer. So, mobilizing of Rs.4,00,000/- is not meant for readiness, which was transacted prior to contract, the readiness has to be considered only after execution of contract Ex.A.1 The balance amount is a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- only. However, the plaintiff has proved his readiness by making request for execution prior to suit, also issued legal notice. The Courts below properly appreciated these facts. Moreover, the contention of fraud is not substantiated by the defendant. The trial Court properly compared the signature of the defendant in Ex.A.1, Ex.B.19 and Ex.B.20 and decided that the signature found in Ex.A.1 is that of the defendant only. Moreover, during the first appeal proceedings, on filing the petition by the defendant, his signature was sent for expert opinion. The expert was examined as Court witness before the first Appellate Court and the expert has given clear evidence about the signature of the defendant by producing an opinion. There is no doubt over the Ex.A.1-Agreement. The Courts below gave concurrent findings. Hence, there is no scope for interference with factual findings of the Courts below. Unless the findings of the Courts below are found to be perverse, the same has to be confirmed. In this case, the plaintiff has proved his case by producing convincible and acceptable evidences and the same were properly appreciated by the courts below and gave concurrent findings. Therefore, the second appeal may be dismissed.

15. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the following rulings:

                                   (i) 2023 (2) MWN (Civil) 473 – R.Hemalatha /vs/ Kashthuri case wherein it is held in paragraph Nos.10 and 13 as follows:

                                   "10. Thus, as per Proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting the immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for Specific Performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document.

                                   13. Under the circumstances, as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for Specific Performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf of either of the parties that the document/Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the category of document as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly observed and held relying upon Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that the unregistered document in question namely unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49."

                                   (ii) 74 Law Weekly 16 in Kulasekaraperumal Thalavanar /v/ Pathakutty Thalavanar case in page No.19 it is held as follows:

                                   “19.Though the Indian Contract Act does not in terms provide that consideration must be good or valuable to sustain a contract it has always been understood that consideration means something which is of some value in the eye of the law. It must be real and not illusory, whether adequate or not, adequacy being a matter purely for the contracting parties to decide and to agree upon. So long as the consideration is not unreal it is sufficient if it be of slight value only.”

                                   (iii) 2022 (4) CTC 649 in Lakshmi Ammal and Ors. /v/ Gejaraj (died) through LRs case, it is held in paragraph No.16 as follows:

                                   "16.Both the Courts below have concurrently upheld the genuineness of the sale agreement marked as Ex.A3. This sale agreement was executed by the 1st defendant in his capacity as the Power Agent of defendants 2 to 4. The act of the Agent will bind the Principal and consequently, the defendants 2 to 4 are bound by the sale agreement executed by their Power of Attorney Agent. If the sale agreement is upheld, the terms of the sale agreement must also be upheld. Just because the sale agreement had fixed three year period for the payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- by the plaintiff, that by itself will not be a ground to deny the relief of specific performance. When the parties have consciously stipulated such a clause in the agreement, it is not for the Court to disregard the same just because the Court feels it to be unconscionable. Therefore, the trial Court was not right in doubting the sale agreement after having upheld the genuineness of the document, which was found to be binding on the defendants 2 to 4. This finding was rightly reversed by the Lower Appellate Court."

                                   (iv) (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 587 in case of Sugani (MST) /v/ Rameshwar Das and Anr. In paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:

                                   “14. The first appellate court in great detail examined the question as to whether defendants 2 and 3 had knowledge. It was noted that a plea that there was part-payment by defendants 2 and 3 was clearly contrary to the evidence of defendant 1. Scope of interference with factual findings is rather limited. Unless the factual finding is perverse, contrary to material on record, there is practically no scope for interference.”

                                   (v) (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 281 in case of KapilKumar /v/ Raj Kumar. In paragraph No.10 it is held that

                                   “10. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such there were concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court on execution of pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The said findings were on appreciation of entire evidence on record. Therefore, unless the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below were found to be perverse, the same were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under section 100 CPC.”

                                   (vi) 2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 718 in the case of Ponnammal /v/ K.V.Janarthanam in paragraph Nos.18, 19, 20 it is held as follows:

                                   ''18. For analysing the said legal position, the Court has to look into Section 49 of the said Act and the same reads as follows:

                                   “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.—No document required by Section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall —

                                   (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

                                   (b) confer any power to adopt, or

                                   (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

                                   [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877)2, [***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]”

                                   * Proviso added by Act 21 of 1929, S.10 2

                                   ** Now see the Specific Relief Act, 1963

                                   *** The words 'or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882' omitted by Act 48 of 2001, S.6 (w.e.f.24-9-2001)

                                   A mere reading of the said Section would clearly reveal that in a suit for specific performance, an unregistered agreement of sale can be received as evidence. Further, Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 found previously has been omitted by Act 48 of 2001 under Section 6 with effect from 24.09.2001. Now the present legal propositions are:

                                   (i) An unregistered sale agreement can be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance instituted under Chapter II of Specific Relief Act, 1963;

                                   (ii) Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 found in the previous Section has been omitted with effect from 24.09.2001.

                                   19. In the instant case, in Ex-A16, it has been clearly mentioned that possession of the suit properties has been given to the plaintiff. Only on that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has advanced his argument to the effect that Ex.A16 has to be registered.

                                   20. It has already been pointed out prior to amendment dated 24.09.2001 in a suit for part performance filed under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit sale agreement has to be registered but after amendment to previous Section, the same has been omitted. Further, the suit for specific performance can be instituted only under Chapter II of Specific Performance Act, 1963 and if a suit for specific performance is instituted under the said Chapter, an unregistered sale agreement can be received as evidence and there is no legal impediment and therefore, the second contention put forth on the side of the appellants/defendants is not legally correct.

16. In reply, the learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that the suit is filed for the reliefs of specific performance and permanent injunction. Therefore, Ex.A1 must be registered, since it is unregistered, the suit is not maintainable. In Hemalatha’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the registration. Hence, as per the judgment in Palaniammal’s case of this Court (2013 (3) CTC 477), the suit itself is not maintainable. Moreover, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 28.05.2004 calling upon the defendant to execute sale deed in the Sub Registrar's Office on 04.06.2004 and pleaded that the plaintiff was at the Sub Registrar's Office on 04.06.2004, but there is no proof for the same. The trial Court compared Ex.A.1 with Ex.A.18 on bare looking and gave finding. The learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 6357 of this Court in Youlande Louis case. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are perverse.

17. It is admitted by both the plaintiff and the defendant that they are relatives. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties belonged to the defendant, who intended to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff as he wanted to admit his son in medical college and after negotiation sale consideration was fixed at Rs.4,20,000/-, out of the same, the plaintiff paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant on 13.02.2004. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 - Sale Agreement and handed over possession of the suit properties. The defendant strongly denied Ex.A.1 - Sale Agreement, as he never signed the same, as he did not offer to sell the suit properties. The defendant further contended that the defendant purchased the suit properties from the father of the plaintiff and that, as the plaintiff is an adjacent land owner, wanted to knock off the suit properties, so the plaintiff created Ex.A1 which is forged one and also stated that the plaintiff had no means to pay such huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 13.02.2004.

18. On perusal of records, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court appreciated the evidences let in on both sides and came to the conclusion that Ex.A.1 is a genuine one and the plaintiff has proved his case in respect of the sale agreement executed by the defendant with handing over possession. The Courts below further held that the plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards sale consideration. The plaintiff’s wife was working as lecturer and also the plaintiff’s brother P.W.2 lent Rs.1,50,000/-, which were proved by the plaintiff. These facts were not disproved by the defendant before the Courts below.

19. The defendant pleaded that Ex.A.1 is forged and created one. While so, the onus rests upon the defendant to prove the allegation of forged document. But, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1, no other independent witness was examined and he has not produced any documents to substantiate that Ex.A.1 is forged one. Whereas the plaintiff examined witnesses and produced documents on his side to prove his case. The trial Court compared the signature of the defendant found in Ex.A.1 with Ex.A.18 & Ex.A.19, admittedly certified copies of the plaint containing the admitted signature of the defendant and gave a finding that the signature in Ex.A.1 is that of the defendant. Before the first Appellate Court, the defendant filed the petition to send Ex.A.1 - sale agreement for expert opinion and on allowing the same, expert opinion was obtained. The handwriting expert was examined as C.W.1, and expert opinion was marked as Ex.X.1. C.W.1 gave evidence and produced expert opinion that the admitted and disputed signature of the defendant was compared scientifically and opined that the signature found in Ex.A.1 is belonged to the defendant. The first Appellate Court considered the evidence of C.W.1 and Ex.X.1, came to the conclusion that the signature found in Ex.A.1 is belonged to the defendant. Therefore, both the Courts came to the same conclusion that the facts of the sale agreement and payment of advance and possession of means by the plaintiff are proved and that the allegation made by the defendant regarding forge over Ex.A.1 is disproved. Hence, the ruling Youlande Louis case reported in 2022 SCC Online 6357 relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant is not applicable to the facts of this case.

20. It is settled proposition of law that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, except some exceptions, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Mohamed v. J.Kamala reported in (2020) 19 SCC 57, held as follows:

                                   “37.4. The general rule is, that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where: (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.”

                                   But, in this case, the concurrent findings of the Courts below do not fall in the above criteria. Both the Courts below correctly appreciated the evidences adduced on both sides and held that Ex.A.1 is established by the plaintiff and the defendant failed to prove his case.

21. At this juncture, the defendant mainly attacks Ex.A.1 before this second appeal, as it is an unregistered one. The learned counsel for the defendant mainly argued that as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, Ex.A.1 must be registered since the plaintiff sought reliefs of specific performance along with permanent injunction, so the suit is not maintainable mainly relying on the decision of this Court in Palaniammal /v/ K.R.C.Anbalagan case reported in 2013 (3) CTC 477. Moreover, both sides relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in R.Hemalatha /vs/ Kashthuri case (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 725 = 2023 (2) MWN (Civil) 473. A careful perusal of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the unregistered document holder cannot claiming benefits U/s.53A of the Transfer of Properties Act, but the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the unregistered agreement to sell shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the Proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Muruganandam /v/ Muniyandi in Civil Appeal No.6543 of 2025 in 2025 INSC 652 decided on 08.05.2025 again held that the unregistered agreement for sale can be received as evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted its earlier decision in S. Kaladevi v. V.R.Somasundaram reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401, in which it is held that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance. The relevant portion from the decision is as follows:

                                   “12. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act.”

23. On perusal of Ponnammal /v/ Janarthanam' case (2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 718) rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, it is clearly held that since section 53A of the Transfer of Properties Act has been omitted with effect from 24.09.2001, the present legal positions are (i) An unregistered sale agreement can be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance instituted under Chapter II of Specific Relief Act, 1963; (ii) Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 found in the previous Section has been omitted with effect from 24.09.2001. In the light of the above legal positions settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, Ex.A.1 - Sale Agreement is admissible in evidence even though it is unregistered.

24. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has filed the suit not only for specific performance but also for permanent injunction, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. On perusal of rulings relied on both, particularly the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ponnammal /v/ Janarthanam case (2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 718), the said appeal has been preferred against the decree passed in a suit for specific performance and also for perpetual injunction. In that case, also unregistered sale agreement was also in dispute and this Court held that the unregistered sale agreement is admissible in evidence and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the argument of the defendant that the present suit for specific relief with permanent injunction is not maintainable has no effect. Therefore, the decision rendered by this Court in Palaniammal /v/ Anbalagan case in 2013(3) CTC 477 relied on by the defendant is not applicable to this case, but the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ponnammal /v/ Janarthanam case in 2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 718 is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

25. The next argument is that the trial Court has not framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his contract. From the evidences, it is proved that the plaintiff had sufficient means to pay the huge advance of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the sale consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. The balance to be paid is only Rs.20,000/-. It is proved fact that the petitioner is an earning man and his wife is working as a lecturer in a private college. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he demanded the defendant for execution of the sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and also caused issuance of legal notice Ex.A.6 to the defendant calling upon him to the Sub Registrar Office. It is sufficient to show his readiness and willingness in the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the defendant. Moreover, it is proved that the defendant received huge amount towards advance. Therefore, mere non framing of the issue regarding readiness and willingness does not affect the entire case of the plaintiff.

26. From the above facts and circumstances, the Courts below found concurrent finding only based on the evidences oral as well as documentary adduced on either side in accordance with the settled proposition of law. The said findings need not be interfered by this Court by way of second appeal. The citations relied on by the appellant/defendant are not applicable to the facts of this case, whereas the citations relied on by the respondent/plaintiff are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The questions of law 1 and 2 are answered against the appellant. Thus, this second appeal fails.

27. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2018 passed in A.S.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2005 made in O.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.