( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 4-12-1989 passed in AS No. 10 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Adilabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1989 passed in OS No. 55 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Adilabad. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit OS No. 55 of 1984.

( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed that suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 17-1-1981 (Ex. A1) against the appellant-defendant and in the alternative for return of the advance money paid by him at the time of execution of the said agreement of sale. The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The first appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved of that, the defendant has come up with this second appeal.

( 3 ) THE only substantial question of law raised by Sri P. S. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that under the provisions of Section 20 (2) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court ought not to have granted the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff as such a relief causes great hardship to the defendant and refusal to grant such a relief does not cause any hardship to the plaintiff.

( 4 ) BEFORE taking up this point I will refer to the necessary facts in this case. The appellant-defendant is the owner of the house bearing No. 2-1-320/1 (hereinafter referred to as the suit house ) with three temporary houses in the compound situated in Adilabad Town. The defendant entered into an agreement to sell the said house for Rs. 14,500. 00 and after receiving Rs. 9,500. 00 as earnest money he executed the agreement of sale dated 17-1-1981 (Ex. Al) in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed under the said agreement that the defendant should execute registered sale deed by December, 1981, after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 5,000. 00. Though it is is averred in the agreement of sale that the possession of the suit house was delivered to the plaintiff, but, iii fact no such possession was effected on the date of agreement. The plaintiff got issued notice dated 29-3-1982 (Ex. A6) calling upon the defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the sale deed but the defendant neither gave a reply nor complied with the request of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and in the alternative for refund of advance money of Rs. 9,500. 00paid by him with interest.

( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff It is his positive plea that he never agreed to sell the suit house to the plaintiff, but, the agreement was executed as security for the amount of Rs. 9,500. 00 fell due by him to the plaintiff in the business transactions between them and that the plaintiff agreed to give two years time to him to repay the said sum of Rs. 9,500/. As regards the demand notice dated 29-3-1982 (Ex. A6) the defendant contends that after receipt of the said notice, he met the plaintiff and reminded him of the promise made by him before the elders-Mahajan Ramulu, Mohd. Bhai and others that he will receive the amount of Rs. 9,500. 00 and, therefore, he did not give any written reply. The defendant also pleaded that he is prepared to pay the said amount of Rs. 9,500. 00.

( 6 ) THE trial Court settled the necessary issues during the trial. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and he also examined the attestor of the agreement of sale as PW2. The plaintiff also filed the documents Exs. A1 to A7. The defendant got himself examined as DW1 and he also examined one elder by name Mohd. Bin Ahmed As DW2, but he did not support h