K. VENKATARAMAN, J.

Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S. No. 672 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs thereon are the respondents herein.

2. The parties in this second appeal, for the sake of convenience, are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S. No. 672 of 1996 against defendants 1 to 5 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 6.7.1990, to deliver possession or in the alternative, directing the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,47,478/- to the plaintiffs creating a charge over the suit property and to pay the costs. Pending suit, the first defendant died and his wife has been brought on record as sixth defendant.

4. The averments made in the plaint in nutshell are as follows: The plaintiffs are the brothers. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 to 5. Subsequent to the demise of the first defendant, his wife, the sixth defendant had also been added as a party. A sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 6.7.1990 agreeing to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and on that date, a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-has been received as an advance. The defendants have undertaken to vacate the tenant from the portion of the suit property and to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the defendants were postponing the sale on the ground that they were not able to vacate the tenant, on 30.12.1990, an endorsement has been made on the rear side of the said sale agreement by the defendants to execute the sale deed within three months from the date of eviction of the tenant viz., Chinnasamy, son of Thesa Naicker. But, however, the defendants have not vacated the tenant and executed the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 13.7.1996 expressing their readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount and to get the sale deed executed. The fourth defendant alone received the said notice. Defendants 3 and 5 evaded to receive the same. No reply has been sent for the said notice. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for the relief set out earlier.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement, which has been adopted by defendants 2 to 5 and the averments made thereon in brief are as follows: It is true that the written agreement had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but it was not intended to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was only a money transaction and there was no intention to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs. Since the defendants approached the plaintiffs for a loan, as suggested by the plaintiffs, the agreement of sale was executed by the defendants only as a security. The property would be five times more than the agreed price and moreover for the balance of Rs. 10,000/-, there is no necessity to give six months time. The suit property is not an agricultural property and it is situated adjacent to Sivagiri Bus Stand. After getting the registered agreement, from the defendants the plaintiffs obtained signatures on the back side of the third page of the agreement wherein nothing was written. The suit property has always been in the possession of the defendants and it was not leased out to anybody at any point of time. The endorsement made on the back of the third page of the agreement is a fabricated one. Since there was no tenant in possession of the suit property, the claim of vacating them and executing a registered sale deed within three months from vacating the alleged tenant does not arise in any manner. The suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action for the suit. Thus, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode