Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the decree and judgment dated 19.11.2011 in O.S. No. 6 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Karur, whereby the trial court granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

The essential factual matrix as set out in the opinion: on 16.04.2007 the respondent/plaintiff and the first appellant/first defendant allegedly entered into a sale agreement (Ex.A1) for certain landed properties for a total consideration of Rs. 12,75,000/-. The respondent agreed to pay Rs. 12,51,100/- as advance (Rs. 11,66,100/- by demand draft and Rs. 85,000/- by cash). Time for execution of the sale deed was fixed at six months and Rs. 24,000/- was to be paid towards stamp duty, registration charges and the balance.

After entering into the agreement, the respondent/plaintiff left for the USA. The first defendant allegedly failed to execute the sale as per the agreement; the respondent served a lawyer's notice dated 10.11.2008 which was refused. The respondent filed suit for specific performance.

The first defendant denied the authenticity of the sale agreement, alleging forgery and that he was not the absolute owner (two sisters had shares). The first defendant also asserted a broader contention that the respondent forged his signature and that there were other related commercial dealings between the parties. The first defendant sold a portion of the suit property to the second and third appellants by a sale deed dated 03.03.2009.

The trial court framed five issues—relating to authenticity of the sale agreement, receipt of advance, bona fides of purchasers 2 and 3, entitlement to specific performance and reliefs. Evidence was led by both sides. The trial court accepted the sale agreement as genuine, found that the first defendant received the advance, held that the sale in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was hit by lis pendens and was not a bona fide purchase, and granted the discretionary remedy of specific performance to the respondent/plaintiff.

The present appeal challenges that decree. During the appeal, the appellants filed M.P. No. 2 of 2012 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence — an RTI communication dated 19.01.2012 from the Sub-Treasury Officer, Kulithalai — which, it was contended, showed that the stamp paper used for Ex.A1 could not have been available on 16.04.2007 because the stamp paper bearing the relevant number was received by the Sub-Treasury only on 06.09.2007. The appellate court heard the matter and decided to determine the interlocutory application for additional evidence first.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 16.04.2007 (Ex.A1) between the plaintiff and the first defendant is genuine?
2. Whether the first defendant received Rs. 12,51,100/- as advance pursuant to the sale agreement dated 16.04.2007?
3. Whether defendants 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers of the suit property without notice?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?
5. Whether the appellants' application (M.P. No. 2 of 2012) to adduce additional evidence (RTI communication dated 19.01.2012) should be allowed, and if so, what procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 and Rule 28 CPC should be followed for recording that evidence?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Defendants') Arguments

• The first defendant denied executing the sale agreement and alleged the document (Ex.A1) was forged; no consideration was passed to him.
• The first defendant was not the absolute owner of the suit property, as two sisters had shares in the property.
• The sale agreement was fabricated taking advantage of acquaintance; the respondent forged the signature of the first petitioner.
• The appellants 2 and 3 contended they purchased the property after verifying title, are in possession, and are bonafide purchasers without notice.
• By M.P. No. 2 of 2012, the appellants sought to adduce an RTI communication (dated 19.01.2012) from the Sub-Treasury Officer stating the stamp paper serial number used for Ex.A1 was issued to the Sub-Treasury only on 06.09.2007, which, if true, would impeach the execution date of Ex.A1 (16.04.2007) and go to the root of the sale agreement.

Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Arguments

• The respondent denied the RTI details and alleged the records had been manipulated. He stated he had made representations to higher officials of the Treasury Office and reserved the right to expose falsity in the appellants' claim.
• The respondent indicated he would file further communications from higher officials by way of additional counter affidavit and sought opportunity to place such material before the court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ravichandran v. Paramasivam, reported in 2014 (1) LW 828	When an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be allowed, the appellate court must follow the procedure under Order XLI Rule 28 CPC for recording additional evidence.	The court relied on this authority to conclude that, having allowed the application to adduce the RTI communication, it must follow the Rule 28 procedure — either take the evidence itself or remit the matter to the trial court to record the evidence and forward it.
Jayamoorthy v. Palani, reported in 2013-4 L.W. 405; (2013) 7 MLJ 471	Explains the procedure and constraints when dealing with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and describes the operation of Order XLI Rule 28 CPC (mode of taking additional evidence).	The court extracted and applied paragraph guidance from this decision to determine that additional evidence which is allowed must be recorded according to the procedure in Rule 28, and therefore remitted the matter to the trial court for recording the RTI communication and attendant oral evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court proceeded in two stages: first it considered whether M.P. No. 2 of 2012 (the application to adduce the RTI communication dated 19.01.2012) should be decided before the appeal; and second, if the application were to be allowed, what procedural steps would follow.

The court observed that the entire suit rests on Ex.A1, the sale agreement dated 16.04.2007. The RTI communication indicated that the stamp paper bearing the serial number used in Ex.A1 (AA888511) was received by the Sub-Treasury, Kulithalai on 06.09.2007 from the District Treasury, Karur. If proven, that fact would impeach the asserted execution date of Ex.A1 and thus "go to the root of the document."

The court recognized the parties' positions: appellants relied on the RTI reply as important evidence; the respondent denied the RTI particulars and had made representations to higher treasury officials and reserved rights to file further material. The court treated the RTI communication as an important piece of evidence whose authenticity and implications needed to be tested.

The court then examined relevant authority (Ravichandran and Jayamoorthy) concerning applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and the procedure under Rule 28 CPC. The cited precedents establish that where an appellate court allows additional evidence, it must follow Rule 28: the appellate court may either itself take the evidence or remit the matter to the subordinate (trial) court to record it and send it up. The appellate court noted the limited exception permitting immediate marking of additional documentary evidence only where the opposite party does not dispute genuineness and gives consent.

Applying those legal principles to the facts, the court concluded the RTI communication was significant and could not be ignored; moreover, the facts did not show consent or uncontested admissibility that would permit immediate marking at the appellate stage. Consequently, the court allowed M.P. No. 2 and remitted the specific purpose of recording the RTI communication and related oral evidence back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court was directed to permit both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence, summon relevant officials, allow cross-examination, and send the recorded evidence back to the appellate court within three months.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court's operative disposition is as follows:

M.P. No. 2 of 2012 is allowed; the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for recording the additional evidence (the RTI communication dated 19.01.2012 and attendant oral evidence). The appeal is kept pending. No costs were awarded.

Implications and immediate consequences:

• Both parties are permitted to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in respect of the RTI communication and related matters; the respondent/plaintiff may also adduce materials he obtains from higher treasury officials and may cross-examine witnesses produced by the appellants.
• The Trial Court is directed specifically to record evidence (including summoning officials) on the narrow question of the RTI communication and its implications for Ex.A

  Structured Summary of the Opinion

  Factual and Procedural Background

  The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the decree and judgment dated 19.11.2011 in O.S. No. 6 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Karur, whereby the trial court granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

  The essential factual matrix as set out in the opinion: on 16.04.2007 the respondent/plaintiff and the first appellant/first defendant allegedly entered into a sale agreement (Ex.A1) for certain landed properties for a total consideration of Rs. 12,75,000/-. The respondent agreed to pay Rs. 12,51,100/- as advance (Rs. 11,66,100/- by demand draft and Rs. 85,000/- by cash). Time for execution of the sale deed was fixed at six months and Rs. 24,000/- was to be paid towards stamp duty, registration charges and the balance.

  After entering into the agreement, the respondent/plaintiff left for the USA. The first defendant allegedly failed to execute the sale as per the agreement; the respondent served a lawyer's notice dated 10.11.2008 which was refused. The respondent filed suit for specific performance.

  The first defendant denied the authenticity of the sale agreement, alleging forgery and that he was not the absolute owner (two sisters had shares in the property). The first defendant also asserted a broader contention that the respondent forged his signature and that there were other related commercial dealings between the parties. The first defendant sold a portion of the suit property to the second and third appellants by a sale deed dated 03.03.2009.

  The trial court framed five issues—relating to authenticity of the sale agreement, receipt of advance, bona fides of purchasers 2 and 3, entitlement to specific performance and reliefs. Evidence was led by both sides. The trial court accepted the sale agreement as genuine, found that the first defendant received the advance, held that the sale in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was hit by lis pendens and was not a bona fide purchase, and granted the discretionary remedy of specific performance to the respondent/plaintiff.

  The present appeal challenges that decree. During the appeal, the appellants filed M.P. No. 2 of 2012 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence — an RTI communication dated 19.01.2012 from the Sub-Treasury Officer, Kulithalai — which, it was contended, showed that the stamp paper used for Ex.A1 could not have been available on 16.04.2007 because the stamp paper bearing the relevant number was received by the Sub-Treasury only on 06.09.2007. The appellate court heard the matter and decided to determine the interlocutory application for additional evidence first.

  Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the sale agreement dated 16.04.2007 (Ex.A1) between the plaintiff and the first defendant is genuine?
  2. Whether the first defendant received Rs. 12,51,100/- as advance pursuant to the sale agreement dated 16.04.2007?
  3. Whether defendants 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers of the suit property without notice?
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?
  5. Whether the appellants' application (M.P. No. 2 of 2012) to adduce additional evidence (RTI communication dated 19.01.2012) should be allowed, and if so, what procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 and Rule 28 CPC should be followed for recording that evidence?

  Arguments of the Parties

  Appellants' (Defendants') Arguments

  • The first defendant denied executing the sale agreement and alleged the document (Ex.A1) was forged; no consideration was passed to him.
  • The first defendant was not the absolute owner of the suit property, as two sisters had shares in the property.
  • The sale agreement was fabricated taking advantage of acquaintance; the respondent forged the signature of the first petitioner.
  • The appellants 2 and 3 contended they purchased the property after verifying title, are in possession, and are bonafide purchasers without notice.
  • By M.P. No. 2 of 2012, the appellants sought to adduce an RTI communication (dated 19.01.2012) from the Sub-Treasury Officer stating the stamp paper serial number used for Ex.A1 was issued to the Sub-Treasury only on 06.09.2007, which, if true, would impeach the execution date of Ex.A1 (16.04.2007) and go to the root of the sale agreement.

  Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Arguments

  • The respondent denied the RTI details and alleged the records had been manipulated. He stated he had made representations to higher officials of the Treasury Office and reserved the right to expose falsity in the appellants' claim.
  • The respondent indicated he would file further communications from higher officials by way of additional counter affidavit and sought opportunity to place such material before the court.

  Table of Precedents Cited

  Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
  Ravichandran v. Paramasivam, reported in 2014 (1) LW 828	When an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be allowed, the appellate court must follow the procedure under Order XLI Rule 28 CPC for recording additional evidence.	The court relied on this authority to conclude that, having allowed the application to adduce the RTI communication, it must follow the Rule 28 procedure — either take the evidence itself or remit the matter to the trial court to record the evidence and forward it.
  Jayamoorthy v. Palani, reported in 2013-4 L.W. 405; (2013) 7 MLJ 471	Explains the procedure and constraints when dealing with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and describes the operation of Order XLI Rule 28 CPC (mode of taking additional evidence).	The court extracted and applied paragraph guidance from this decision to determine that additional evidence which is allowed must be recorded according to the procedure in Rule 28, and therefore remitted the matter to the trial court for recording the RTI communication and attendant oral evidence.

  Court's Reasoning and Analysis

  The appellate court proceeded in two stages: first it considered whether M.P. No. 2 of 2012 (the application to adduce the RTI communication dated 19.01.2012) should be decided before the appeal; and second, if the application were to be allowed, what procedural steps would follow.

  The court observed that the entire suit rests on Ex.A1, the sale agreement dated 16.04.2007. The RTI communication indicated that the stamp paper bearing the serial number used in Ex.A1 (AA888511) was received by the Sub-Treasury, Kulithalai on 06.09.2007 from the District Treasury, Karur. If proven, that fact would impeach the asserted execution date of Ex.A1 and thus "go to the root of the document."

  The court recognized the parties' positions: appellants relied on the RTI reply as important evidence; the respondent denied the RTI particulars and had made representations to higher treasury officials and reserved rights to file further material. The court treated the RTI communication as an important piece of evidence whose authenticity and implications needed to be tested.

  The court then examined relevant authority (Ravichandran and Jayamoorthy) concerning applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and the procedure under Rule 28 CPC. The cited precedents establish that where an appellate court allows additional evidence, it must follow Rule 28: the appellate court may either itself take the evidence or remit the matter to the subordinate (trial) court to record it and send it up. The appellate court noted the limited exception permitting immediate marking of additional documentary evidence only where the opposite party does not dispute genuineness and gives consent.

  Applying those legal principles to the facts, the court concluded the RTI communication was significant and could not be ignored; moreover, the facts did not show consent or uncontested admissibility that would permit immediate marking at the appellate stage. Consequently, the court allowed M.P. No. 2 and remitted the specific purpose of recording the RTI communication and related oral evidence back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court was directed to permit both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence, summon relevant officials, allow cross-examination, and send the recorded evidence back to the appellate court within three months.

  Holding and Implications

  Holding: The court's operative disposition is as follows:

  M.P. No. 2 of 2012 is allowed; the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for recording the additional evidence (the RTI communication dated 19.01.2012 and attendant oral evidence). The appeal is kept pending. No costs were awarded.

  Implications and immediate consequences:

  • Both parties are permitted to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in respect of the RTI communication and related matters; the respondent/plaintiff may also adduce materials he obtains from higher treasury officials and may cross-examine witnesses produced by the appellants.
  • The Trial Court is directed specifically to record evidence (including summoning officials) on the narrow question of the RTI communication and its implications for Ex.A1, and to forward the recorded evidence to the appellate court within three months.
  • The main appeal remains pending and will be considered after the additional evidence is recorded and returned to the appellate court.
  • No new legal principle was laid down by this order; the court applied and followed existing precedent concerning the procedure for recording additional evidence under Order XLI Rules 27 and 28 CPC.

  This summary is based exclusively on the information contained in the provided opinion text.