A. Hariprasad, J.

1. What are the essentials for claiming a charge on the seller's interest in the property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short, the T.P. Act) is the precise legal question emerging for determination. Defendants 2 to 5 in a suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement, purported to have been executed between the plaintiff and 1st defendant to assign immovable property, are in appeal against the decree passed by the court below. They are discontented by the direction in the decree to create a charge on the land shown in the plaint schedule, because they had purchased it from the 1st defendant before institution of the suit.

2. Pending appeal, the 1st defendant died. His legal heirs are impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 7.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, 1st respondent and additional respondents 3 to 7.

4. Facts relevant for disposal of the case, stated briefly, are as follows:

The 1st respondent (plaintiff) and 1st defendant were acquaintances. They had some financial dealings earlier. 1st defendant demanded a loan from the plaintiff for his business purpose. 1st defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.40,000/-. On 20.11.1991, the plaintiff paid Rs.20,000/- to the 1st defendant. 1st defendant agreed to pay interest for Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of the principal amount and interest, the 1st defendant was bound to transfer the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff or his nominee. All the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties have been incorporated in Ext.A1 agreement. At the time of executing Ext.A1, the 1st defendant had handed over a copy of the deed of partition in his family and basic tax receipts to the plaintiff. 1st defendant failed to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest, as agreed. Hence, the suit is filed for specific performance of the contract.

5. Supplemental defendants 2 to 5 (who are the appellants herein) were impleaded in the suit, alleging that they purchased the property from the 1st defendant without any bonafides and with full knowledge about Ext.A1 agreement.

6. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint. According to him, there was no agreement between the plaintiff and himself to sell the property. Virtually, he denied execution of Ext.A1. He contended that he had no prior acquaintance with the plaintiff. He had taken Rs.15,000/- as loan from one Muralidharan. At that time, 1st defendant had handed over signed documents to him. He had also given signed blank stamp papers. The plaintiff must have misused the stamp papers in collusion with Muralidharan. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. Supplemental defendants 2 to 5 filed a written statement contending that they were not aware of any transaction between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. According to them, Ext.A1 was created by the plaintiff and 1st defendant in collusion with each other to defeat their rights in the property purchased for a valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the property. 1st defendant never intimated the appellants about Ext.A1 agreement. The plaintiff is not entitled to get reliefs against the property.

8. The trial court raised an issue regarding the right of plaintiff to get a specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement. In order to adjudicate the issue, the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and that of DWs 1 and 2 were considered. Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 were relied on by the court below.

9. Learned trial Judge found that Ext.A1 had been executed by the 1st defendant pursuant to a money transaction that he had with the plaintiff. The court therefore entered a finding that the 1st defendant was liable to return the amount shown in Ext.A1 with interest to the plaintiff. The trial court specifically found that the parties never intended to execute Ext.A1 as an agreement for sale. According to the findin