The main legal point established is that the sale agreement was executed for security and not for sale, and the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract led to the dismissal of the suit.

1. This Appeal Suit (First Appeal) arises out of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2006 made in O.S.No.121 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I) Coimbatore.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

(i) The suit property was allotted to the share of the first defendant under a registered partition deed dated 16.06.1993. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Both the plaintiff and the defendants were entered into a sale agreement on 16.02.1999. The sale price of the suit property was fixed at Rs.6,00,000/- and on the date of the agreement itself, Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff by way of cheque No.025018 of the Union Bank of India, Negamam Branch. The time for execution of the sale deed was fixed as three years from the date of agreement of sale. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- has to be paid by the plaintiff within three years to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiff was always ready to execute the sale deed.

(ii) The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property on the date of agreement of sale itself and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In spite of several oral request made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. Hence the plaintiff issued a personal notice to the defendants on 13.02.2002 and also sent telegram on 14.02.2002.

(iii) On 14.02.2002, the defendants met the plaintiff and requested a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards additional part of the sale amount and prayed further two years time as extension for the execution of the sale deed, due to the ill health of the first defendant. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff on 16.08.2002 and also received the receipt for the same. Since the defendants were not executed the sale deed and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff by force, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for specific performance and alternatively, directing the defendants to refund the amount that he paid as an advance, with interest and also for injunction not to interfere his possession and prayed for a decree.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant, adopted by the second defendant are as follows:-

(i) No sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants never agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The alleged sale agreement was executed only for the security purpose. So, there was no question of readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract.

(ii) The defendants alone are in actual and physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This defendant denied that on 14.02.2002, the plaintiff met these defendants and requested to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards additional part of sale amount and prayed further two years time as extension for the execution of the sale deed. In the said sale agreement, there was a material alteration in the endorsement.

(iii) This defendant was engaged in coconut business. In the month of February 1999, the first defendant approached one K.V.Kandasamy of Negamam, who is an ex-MLA and the father of the plaintiff for financial assistance to clear his debts and to continue his coconut business. Father of the plaintiff agreed to lend money to the defendants provided the defendants executed such documents as may be required by him. The defendants agreed to execute promissory note for the amount borrowed, but K.V.Kandasamy, who is the father of the plaintiff refused for the said proposal and insisted that an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property has to be entered into by the defendants in favour of his son K.V.K.Subramaniam (i.e.) the plaintiff. The defendants were in dire need of money and they had no other option but to succumb to the pressure of K.V.Kandasamy in collusion with his son K.V.K.Subramaniam. K.V.Kandasamy is politically very influential and has enor