Interference with questions of fact in second appeal by the Appellate Court.

The defendants are the appellants in this appeal.

2. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated7.5.1979. According plaintiffs, the first defendant is entitled to 3 1/2 cents of the suit property and the defendant is entitled to 21/2 cents and they jointly executed an agreement on marked as Ex.A-1. The consideration agreed is Rs.11,700, out of which a sum of was received by the defendants by way of advance. As per the agreement, the plaintiff to take over the debt due under a loan agreement executed by the defendants in the plaintiff ’ s mother by name Maha-mayee Ammal. A sum of Rs.2,500 was towards that and the balance was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration sale deed before the Sub Registrar. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready willing to perform his part of the contract; but the defendants were not inclined to the sale deed. A notice was issued by the plaintiff on 4.7.1979 to the defendants. The was accepted by the second defendant while the notice sent to the first defendant unserved. The second defendant sent a reply on 12.7.1979 under Ex.A-7. The defendant stated that her husband might have got her thumb impression on the document without informing her of the contents of the same. It was also stated that she having good relationship with her husband. Thus the second defendant denied agreement.

3. The defendants filed R.C.O.P.No.843 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Town for eviction under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Act against the plaintiffs mother on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent petition is marked as Ex.A-8. The counter filed by the plaintiff’s mother on the said is marked Ex.B-1.

4. The present suit was filed on 6.8.1982 for specific performance.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants on the grounds that the agreement executed by the second defendant. Therefore, it was not valid. Secondly it was urged the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he entitled to enforce the same specifically. The third contention was that there was cancellation of the agreement by the defendants. Fourthly, it was urged that the plaintiff had not performed his part of the contract of discharging the debt due mother.

6. The trial court upheld the contentions put forward by the defendants and dismissed suit, and on appeal, the lower appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree trial court. The lower appellate court has found that the agreement was true and executed by both the defendants. It was also found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to his part of the contract and there was no abandonment of the claim by the plaintiff time. It was held that there was no oral cancellation, as pleaded by the defendants. Consequently, a decree was passed by the lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the contentions put forward defendants in the court below.

8. Learned counsel invited my attention to the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 P.W.2 and contended that the burden being heavily on the plaintiff, he should have that there was an agreement executed by both the defendants. According to evidence on record would not make out the execution of Ex.A-1 by the second defendant therefore it is not enforceable. It is also argued by learned counsel that unless and plaintiff discharges the loan of his mother, he is not entitled to maintain the suit for performance. Lastly, it is contended that the case of oral cancellation ought to have accepted by the lower appellate court.

9. The question which arise for consideration in this appeal are questions of fact. The appellate court is the final court of fact and even if there is any grievous error committed the lower appellate court, is not open to this Court to interfere with the finding of fact at by