Sankarasubban, J.

Plaintiff is the Appellant. Suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property or in the alternative for return of the amount advanced.The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

2. The plaint schedule property belongs to defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. The agreement was executed on 16.9.1988 and an advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh was given to the defendants. As per the agreement , the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed and put the plaintiff in possession of the property within one year.

3. The defendants did not execute the sale deed. The defendants violated the terms and conditions of agreement .Ultimately, the plaintiff sent lawyer notice on 5.1.1991 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed .A reply was given by the defendants stating false and baseless matters . The defendants are liable and bound to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed. If for some reason the execution of the sale deed becomes impossible,the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree in his favour for realization of Rs. 1 lakh.

4. A joint written statement was filed by defendants 1 and 2 .In the written statement it was denied that they executed Ext.A1 document agreeing to sell the property . Acording to the defendants ,they were in dire need of money .Hence , they approached the plaintiff to give them a loan of Rs 1 lakh .The plaintiff agreed to give them a loan , if certain documents were executed .The defendant were asked to sign on stamp paper and they signed on the stamp paper .The plaitiff also wanted copies of the tittle deeds.After taking Rs 10,000/- towards interest, Rs.90,000/- was given to the defendants.On the same day , the plaintiff wanted the defendants to give security of the car bearing registration No.KCT 3593, belonging to the defendants in favour of the plaintiff's son stating that the car has been sold to his son Anil Kumar .

5. According to the plaintiff , the subject matter of the suit , viz, Nandavanam Tourist Home , contains a number of rooms , both residential and non-residential .The rooms have been rented out to various tenants.The tenants did not pay arrears of rent for the last so many years .Hence, the defendants were in great difficulty .It was in such circumstance that they approached the plaintiff for a loan .It was further stated that since the car was not given possession to the plaitiff's son , a complaint was filed against the defendants for cheating .A suit for injunction was also filed by the plaintiff from alienating the plaint schedule property. It was further contended that valuation of the property will be more than Rs.l Crore. This itself shows that there was no intention on the mind of the parties to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further it is contended that the amount received by them has been discharged and there is no balance amount to be paid. According to fee defendants, the plaintiff has not come with clean hand before court and that he is not entitled to specific performance.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings , the court below raised six issues. On behalf of the plaitiff, Exts. Al to A7 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, Exts. Bl to B12 were marked. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 and 3. The first defendant was examined as DW1. The court below found that agreement dated 16.9.1988 was executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. It also found that on the date of the agreement , an amount of Rs.l lakh was paid to the defendants. So far as the discharge pleaded by the defendants, it was found against he defendants. Issue No.4 was whether the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale deed executed. While considering this issue the court appreciated