1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.8.2007, made in A.S.No.115 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 9.12.2003, made in O.S.No.568 of 1992, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2. Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, in O.S.No.568 of 1992, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit is the first respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit praying for a decree of specific performance of the agreement for sale, dated 4.11.1987, marked as Ex.A-1.

3. In the registered agreement, dated 4.11.1987, it had been agreed that the sale of the suit property is to take place within a period of one year from the date of the agreement. An advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid, as part of the sale consideration, on the date of the agreement. Thereafter, by way of Ex.A-2, dated 22.10.1988, the period specified in the agreement, dated 4.11.1987, had been extended by three months and an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been taken from the plaintiff on the said date and an endorsement had been made on the back side of the agreement, acknowledging the said fact. As such, the agreement ought to have expired on 21.4.1989.

4. It had also been stated that a power of attorney had been obtained from the second defendant in favour of S.Kumar, a partner in the plaintiff mill. The said document, dated 24.2.1989, had been marked as Ex.A-4. Thereafter, by way of an endorsement made on 15.4.1989, which had been marked as Ex.A-3, the period for execution of the sale deed had been extended by another period of three years stating that the tenant was in occupation of the property in question and therefore, the sale of the property in question can be effected only after the property is vacated by the tenant.

5. It has been further stated by the plaintiff that, even after repeated reminders, asking the concerned defendants to execute the sale deed, they had not come forward to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice, dated 3.4.1992, marked as Ex.A-5. Since, there was no proper response from the defendants, the plaintiff had filed the suit, praying for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 4.11.1987, on 10.4.1992.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it had been stated that the defendants had never executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to convey the properties mentioned in the suit schedule for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, as alleged by the plaintiff. The agreement referred to in the plaint had been executed by the defendants only in view of certain circumstances which had been narrated in the written statement.

7. It had been stated that a partner of the plaintiff mill, namely, S.Kumar is the son of one Subramaniam, who is closely related to the defendants. In the year 1987, the defendants 1 to 3 had approached the said Subramaniam for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-for which the said defendants were prepared to give their immovable properties, as security for the loan. Subramaniam, after consulting his son S.Kumar, had agreed to advance a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. S.Kumar had suggested the execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff Mill instead of executing a document offering the immovable properties, as security for the loan. It had also been represented by Subramaniam and his son that the amount given as loan should be returned in a period of five years, with interest at 18% per annum. Based on the request of Subramaniam and his son S.Kumar, the defendants had executed the registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff mill.

8. It had also been stated that an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff, as an additional loan to the defendants. There was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the property in question. The plaintiff