The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, no appeal shall lie from the decree passed in the suit as stipulated under Section 6(3) of the Act. The remedy for the defendant, if unsuccessful in the suit, would be to file a regular suit based on title, as against a decision under Section 6 of the Act.

1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6. 2008 passed in A.S.No.557 of 2007 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 27. 2007 made in O.S.No.497 of 2003 on the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit seeking for judgment and decree directing the defendant to hand over possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff and for directing the defendant to return the original parent title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 16. 2002 from M/s.Crescent Agencies and she has been in possession of the property by paying taxes and was running a mens hair cutting saloon in the suit property for more than a year and the defendant who was a regular customer was asking the plaintiff to let out the said premises to him on rent and the plaintiff refused to do so and she closed the saloon in August 2002 and was looking out for a good tenant for the suit property and on 10. 2002, she came to Madras from Bangalore to negotiate a tenancy and after negotiation, she had gone to Airport to Board the flight to Bangalore and she was forcibly taken to the Office of the Commissioner of Police and her signatures were obtained on some blank papers in the presence of the defendant and his associates in the Commissioners Office and she returned to Bangalore. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 10. 2002 through her relative from Chennai, she came to know that on 10. 2002 the defendant with the help of the Police Officers broke open the lock of the property and took illegal and forcible possession of the suit property at 8.30 pm in the night and the defendant also put up a board M/s.Pichamuthu Travels on the suit property. The plaintiff has further stated that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till 10. 2002 when the defendant broke open the lock and took illegal and forcible possession of the suit property and she has not executed any document for handing over possession of the suit property or leasing out the same to the defendant and she filed the suit seeking re-possession of the suit property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

.3. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaint averments and stated that the plaintiff and her husband moved with him closely and became family friends and subsequently had money transactions with him and the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in total for the granite business from the defendant and on 111. 2001, the plaintiff and her employee Rahman took the defendant to the house of Kanaka Durga and the defendant was told that the sale consideration of the suit property is Rs.10 lakhs and if the defendant pays that amount, he can purchase the suit property and believing the representation, the defendant agreed to pay Rs.10 lakhs and paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- through the cheque drawn by his wife Tmt.Poongodi and handed over it to the plaintiff and Kanaka Durga and they received the same and on the third day, through the banker the defendant came to know that the above cheque had been encashed by the plaintiff and Kanaka Durga towards the sale consideration of the suit property and thereafter the defendant paid Rs.6,50,000/-in cash and the defendant was assured that the sale transaction would be completed within six months thereon but to the surprise of the defendant, the plaintiff and Kanaka Durga fraudulently got the sale deed registered in the name of plaintiff on 16. 2002 by utilising the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and Kanaka Durga and for their illegal act, the defendant gave a complaint on 17. 2002 before E3 Teynampet Police Station against the plaintiff and Kanaka Durga and als