K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

The defendant in O.S.36/1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for specific performance of Ext. Al agreement dated 7.4.1995 entered into between the appellant and the respondent whereby the appellant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property of an extent of 55.25 cents comprised in R.S. No. 253/2A of Puthupariyaram amsom, desom for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/-. According to the respondent Rs.1 lakh was paid out of the consideration on the date of execution of Ext. Al and subsequently Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 24.4.1995 and thus Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the consideration is paid and though the respondent was ready and willing to pay the balance amount and to get the registered assignment deed executed by the appellant, the appellant did not do so inspite of repeated demands and Ext. A2 registered notice sent on behalf of the respondent. "

3. The appellant though admitted the execution of Ext. Al agreement and receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the respondent, has contended that Ext. Al is executed not as an agreement for sale of the property but only being security for the loan transaction between the appellant and the respondent. According to the appellant, he never intended to enter into a contract for sale of the plaint schedule property and the price of the plaint schedule property on the date of Ext. Al was much more than what is recited in Ext. Al. He has also contended that he has paid the interest stipulated on the loan transaction up to 7.10.1995 and as he defaulted to pay the subsequent interest, the above suit is filed by the respondent.

4. Before the lower court the plaintiff- respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. The defendant was examined as DW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

5. The lower court after analysing the evidence on record decreed the suit as prayed for and directed the appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the respondent after receiving the balance consideration. The lower court has also directed the respondent to deposit the balance consideration of Rs. 25,000/- in court within three months from the date of the judgment with notice to the appellant and directed the appellant to execute the assignment deed on receipt of such notice. Hence the above appeal is preferred by the defendant-appellant challenging the decree and judgment passed by the lower court.

6. The points for consideration in this appeal are:

(1) Whether Ext. Al is an agreement for sale executed by the appellant or it is a transaction evidencing debt as contended by the appellant.

(2) Whether the respondent is entitled to the specific performance of Ext. Al agreement as prayed for in the plaint.

7. Points: Though the counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the market value of the property on the date of execution of Ext. Al agreement was much more than Rs. 1,75,000/- recited in Ext. Al, apart from the ipse dixit of the appellant as DW1, no evidence is adduced by him to prove that the market value of the plaint schedule property was much more than what is recited in Ext. Al on the date of execution of Ext. Al. Therefore this contention of the appellant has to be rejected.

8. The appellant has further contended that he had absolutely no interest in the plaint schedule property on the date of execution of Ext. Al agreement and therefore, the contention of the respondent that he has executed Ext. Al agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for consideration is not at all tenable.

9. The appellant has nowhere pleaded in the written statement that he had transferred his interest in the plaint schedule property in favour of his mother in the year 1994 and he had absolutely no right in the plaint schedule property on the date of Ext. Al. Apart from putting suggestions to the respondent while he was examined as PW1 t