Agreement to sell in which one party has alone signed.

This is a Second Appeal filed by K. Sheik Adham Sahib in O.S.No.1 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Palani, against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.1979 in A.S.No.125 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dismissing the appeal with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. During the pendency of this Second Appeal, the plaintiff/appellate herein died, and so his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 7 by virtue of the order of this Court dated 27.8.1981 in C.M.P.No.591 of 1981.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance directing the defendant/respondent herein to execute a sale deed for Rs.5,000 in favour of the plaintiff and in default by the defendant, to have the same done through Court and to direct the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties and for costs of suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit properties which are plots Nos.3 and 4 measuring about 2150 sq.ft. and 2194 sq.ft. respectively out of one acre 4245 sq.ft. situated in T.S.No.569 Block No.5 Ward No.3 in Palani Town are within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. These suit properties and some other properties were purchased by the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 10.4.1968. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement (unregistered) dated 1.8.1977 in respect of the suit properties. As per the sale agreement, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.4,000 on the date of sale agreement and within six months the plaintiff should pay the balance of Rs.1,000 and get the deed executed in his favour and in case the defendant failed to execute the sale within six months, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance of Rs.1,000 into court and get the sale deed executed through Court. Along with the same agreement the defendant also produced the original sale deeds to the plaintiff. Under the sale agreement T.S.No.569 has been mistakenly written as T.S.No.564 and the same has to be rectified. As per the sale agreement the plaintiff offered the balance of Rs.1,000 within six months and demanded for execution of the sale by the defendant, but the defendant somehow or other dodged to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff is always willing and ready to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice dated 8.11.1977, for which the defendant issued a reply notice dated 15.11.1977 ating that the sum of Rs.4,000 was not paid as advance but only as a loan and no such sale agreement was executed. In fact the sale agreement was written by one Arumugam Pillai and attested by two witnesses - Subramania Pillai and Rajagopal. Hence the plaintiff after depositing the said balance of Rs.1,000 in Court has filed this suit. Hence the suit was instituted.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he had raised the following contentions: The suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Though the plaintiff has prayed for possession, no court-fees has been paid for the same. Further, the trial Court has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to try the suit. There is no such alleged agreement dated 1.8.1977 and the said document is not at all an agreement in the eye of law and hence there is no enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of the suit properties. The defendant never intended or never executed any such sale agreement. Since the defendant was in a pressure for money, he approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to advance Rs.4,000 on condition that the defendant should pay the said sum within six months with interest and if the defendant failed to repay the amount within six months, he should sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for Rs.5,000. The defendant in order to get money agreed to the unconscionable terms with the hope that he would repay the loan within six months