1. This appeal is focussed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 made in O.S.No.22 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative, for refund of the advance amount with interest by making the following prayers:

"(a) To direct the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within a time specified by this Honble Court, failing which the said sale deed be executed and registered in terms of the provisions of the order XXI Rule 34 of CPC also handover to custody of all the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and vacate and hand over physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff;

(b) or in the alternative terms directing the defendant to pay the amount received as purchase money, together with accrued interest and damages i.e., Rs.17,75,671/-with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the same rate, until its realization declaring the said sum which is unpaid purchase money together with interest accrued and costs to be a charge on the suit schedule property, as contemplated under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act and if the same is not paid within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court directing the sale of the charged property ; and

(c) for costs." (extracted as such)

3. The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit; whereupon issues were framed.

4. During trial, the plaintiff-I.Karthi examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. The defendant-M.Ramesh examined himself as D.W.1.

5. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit rejecting the prayer for specific performance, but ordering refund of the advance amount with pre suit interest as well as pendentelite interest and post decreetal interest.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred this appeal on various grounds.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(a) The trial Court was not justified in ordering interest, despite giving a finding to the effect that the plaintiff was at default in performing his part of the contract. As such, the finding of the trial Court under additional issue No.1 does not go hand in hand with the awarding of the interest under issue No.2. Normally whenever refund of the advance amount is ordered, pre suit interest is not awarded. In the absence of any contract between the parties relating to payment of interest, awarding pre suit interest is something unknown to law. Pendentelite interest was awarded at enormous rate of 18% per annum, which also cannot be countenanced and upheld under law.

(b) Even in the pre suit notice sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, the former unambiguously and unequivocally expressed his desire to return the advance amount, for which there was no positive response from the plaintiff and in such a case, it is something unimaginable as to how the defendant could be made liable to pay interest.

(c) Even in the written statement, the defendant candidly and categorically expressed his desire to return the amount. In such a case, even pendentelite interest cannot be mulcted on the defendant.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the defendant would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and for the dismissal of the s