1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2007 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, in A.S.No.25 of 2007 reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2005 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Salem, in O.S.No.1240 of 2004, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, filed the suit seeking the following relief: "a) to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants directing the suit contract dated 18.2.99 touching the suit property set out in the schedule hereto be specifically performed by the defendants within the time to be fixed by this Honourable Court and in default to order execution of such sale deed by process of Court and to put him in possession the suit property set out in the plaint schedule hereto. 2) In the alternative directing the defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to the defendants with interest at 24% p.a. From the date of suit i.e. From 17.5.2000 till date of realisation."(extracted as such) (b) The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. (c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. On the defendants' side, the first defendant examined herself as D.W.1 along with the second defendant as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. (d) The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance, as against which, the appeal was filed. Whereupon the appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the original suit filed by the plaintiff.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus: (i) The lower appellate Court failed to consider that Ex.A1 was a Registered Agreement to Sell, intended to be acted upon, and the contention of the defendants that D1's husband, while working as collecting agent for the plaintiff caused the said Ex.A1 to be executed by the defendants as security was not proved by the defendants. (ii) The 'onus of proof' was on the defendants, but they failed to discharge the same. However, the first appellate Court erroneously held as though the 'onus of proof' was on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of Ex.A1 and the burden of proof was not on the defendants. (iii) Once the defendants accepted the execution of the registered agreement to sell-Ex.A1, the onus was on the defendants to prove their plea that the said document emerged only as a security and not intended to be acted upon. (iv) Without considering these salient features, the lower appellate Court simply upset the reasoned judgment of the trial Court.

5. The following substantial questions of law are found suggested in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. "(i) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit when the execution of Ex.A1 registered sale agreement was clearly admitted by the respondents both in their written statement and in the oral evidence? (ii) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was right in overlooking that the burden of proving that Ex.A1 was executed for some other purpose, when the respondents had not discharged the burden? (iii) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was not wrong in omitting to see that the respondents had come with a totally false case and that their defence should be rejected?"(extracted as such)

6. Heard both sides.

7. Taking into consideration the arguments on both sides and the materials available on record and also on perusal of the judgment