Court if bound for enforcement of agreement.

Srinivasan, J.

Defendantis the appellant. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 29. 1983 evidenced by Ex.A-1. Under the agreement the sale deed was to be executed before 12. 1984. The total consideration was Rs. 1,01,000 and the plaintiff-respondent paid a sum of Rs.15,000 by way of advance. She issued a notice on 21. 1984 under Ex.A-2 and she got information that the defendant was trying to sell away the property. She filed the suiton 2. 1984 for specific performance. The defendant sent a reply on 2. 1984 claiming that there was a loan transaction and by way of security for repayment of the loan the plaintiff insisted upon an agreement of sale being executed by the defendant and therefore, the agreement was not enforceable. It was also the plea raised in the written statement. According to the defendant the loan amount was Rs.15,000 and it was to be repaid in five months with interest at 18 per cent per annum. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted a decree. The said decree is now challenged in this appeal.

2. We find that Ex.A-1 is written by one B.A.Ramasamy Chettiar, Ex-President of D.H.W.C.S.Ltd., Coimbatore who was not alive at the time of trial. It is attested by one P.Raman Chettiar who has given evidence as P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed that the parties intended to have an enforceable agreement for sale and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15,000 as advance. It is also stated by him that the details for Ex.A-1 were given only by the defendant. It is stated further that two copies of Ex. A-1 were taken and one was given to the defendant and the other was with the plaintiff. The cross examination of P.W.2 has not elicited anything worthwhile in support of the case of the defendant, P.W.2 has denied the suggestion that P.W.1 (husband of the plaintiff) is doing money lending business. He has also stated that he had never gone to the defendant’s house. He has stated that it is not possible to say that the value of the land near the suit property is Rs. 75,000 per acre.

3. On a perusal of the document it is seen that it makes a reference to the sa1e deed of the year 1978 under which the defendant purchased the property and it mentions the number of the document. The defendant is not able to explain how the plaintiff got the number of the sale deed under which she purchased the property in order to mention it in Ex.A-1 if it was only a loan transaction. In evidence the defendant has deposed that she does not know to read. That is an afterthought and the defendant has given that statement only for the first time in the witness box. There is no statement in the reply notice, Ex.B-1 that the defendant was not a person who could read nor is there any plea to that effect in the written statement.

4. It is also deposed by the defendant that she went to P.W.1’s house with a sum of Rs. 17,000 to repay the loan and he refused to accept the same. According to her immediately, a panchayat was held in the textile shop of P.W.I with five or six persons and the panchayatdars took P.W.1 to task, inspite of which he refused to accept the amount. There is no reference whatever in the reply notice to the alleged panchayat nor is there any reference to the said panchayat in the written statement. There is no explanation as to why the reply notice or the written statement does not make a reference to the panchayat. In evidence she stated that the amount was borrowed by her for repairing her house in Telugu Brahmin Street, Coimbatore. There has been no mention about it either in the reply notice or in her written statement. It is also stated by her that P.W.I told her that no promissory note was written as the Agricultural Debt Relief Act was in force. That version is also not stated either in the reply notice or in her written statement. Thus it is seen that the defendant has developed her case stage by stage and given evidence for the first time to several matters which she has not chosen