P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. The defendant in O.S. No.255 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, North Parur, is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent.

2. The suit O.S.No.255 of 2012 was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, there is a granite quarry in the neighbourhood of the plaint schedule property and he was conducting quarrying operations in the said quarry in partnership with others. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant used to create hurdles to the quarrying operations of the plaintiff and consequently, at the instance of the political leaders in the locality, there was a mediation talk and it was decided in the said mediation that the plaintiff shall purchase the plaint schedule property from the defendant for a sum of Rs.90,000/- per cent for the property and Rs.1,50,000/-for the building therein. According to the plaintiff, in furtherance of the said decision, Ext.A2 agreement for sale was executed by the defendant on 23.12.2011, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to him and received a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from him towards advance sale consideration. The case of the plaintiff is that when he requested the defendant to execute the sale deed of the property on 20.3.2012 pursuant to the agreement, the defendant caused to issue Ext.A3 lawyer notice stating that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff during December 2011; that a few blank signed stamp papers were entrusted to the plaintiff as security while borrowing the amount and that when he tendered the borrowed money, the plaintiff refused to return the blank signed papers for not acceding to his demand to pay interest at exorbitant rates for the amount borrowed from him. As per Ext.A3 lawyers notice, the defendant called upon the plaintiff to return the blank signed stamp papers claimed to have been entrusted to him. The plaintiff sent Ext.A4 reply to Ext.A3 notice, denying the transaction mentioned in Ext.A3 notice and calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement, on or before 10.5.2012. The suit was filed thereafter on 29.5.2012 alleging that the defendant has refused to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the agreement for sale and reiterating the stand taken by him in Ext.A3 lawyer notice. According to him, there was neither any mediation talk nor any agreement for sale as alleged by the plaintiff. He also denied the receipt of the advance sale consideration pleaded by the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that the agreement for sale relied on by the plaintiff is a document concocted by the plaintiff, making use of the blank signed stamp papers entrusted by the defendant, while borrowing money from him.

4. The plaintiff gave evidence as PW1. Two witnesses were examined on his side as Pws.2 and 3. The documents produced by the plaintiff were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. The defendant gave evidence as DWl. No other evidence was let in by the defendant.

5. The court below, on an elaborate consideration of the materials on record, found that the defendant had executed Ext.A2 agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.12,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration from him. The court also found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated in the agreement, but the defendant refused to execute the sale deed as agreed upon by him in the agreement for sale. In light of the aforesaid findings, the suit was decreed granting the plaintiff a decree for specific performance as prayed for by him.

6. Heard Sri. K. Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. V.K. Beeran for the