The validity of oral agreements and the admissibility of written agreements signed by one party were upheld by the court.

T. RAJA, J.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 109 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arni, is the appellant and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial Court. The plaintiff/ respondent herein filed a suit with a following prayer:-

"(i) To direct the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and have the same registered by accepting the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/- to be deposited by the plaintiff through the Court, in default, permit the plaintiff to have the sale deed executed and registered through the Court.

(ii) In the alternative, direct the first respondent to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a subsequent interest and further create a charge over the suit properties till the amount is paid by the defendant.

(iii) To direct the defendant to delivery the suit property through the Court, in default, permit the plaintiff to take possession as such.

(iv) To grant a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property."

The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 07.12.2004, passed in O.S. No. 109 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arni, and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in A.S. No. 12 of 2007, dated 26.02.2010. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. In this second appeal, the parties are referred according to their litigative status before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that the defendant is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is running a chit and finance business, where from the defendant availed a loan from the plaintiff to purchase a lorry in the name of his wife R. Rajeswari and for the said transaction, signature of the defendant was obtained in an unfilled blank stamp paper by the plaintiff as security for the loan availed. However, without there being any agreement of sale between the defendant and plaintiff as alleged on 06.03.2002, taking advantage of an unfilled blank stamp paper, the plaintiff and five others came to the defendant's house and forced him to pay the loan amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Thereafter, when a police complaint was made against the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not come forward, however, the defendant had paid the entire loan amount, but the plaintiff did not return the signed blank stamp papers to the defendant. It is further contended by the learned Senior counsel that there was no sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged on 06.03.2002 in respect of the suit property. Moreover, the defendant had not received any advance much less Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. On that basis, he resisted the prayer as sought for by the plaintiff.

3. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the learned trial Court, disbelieving the case of the defendant, wrongly decreed the suit holding that the defendant alone was examined as D.W.1 and no other witnesses were examined and that no document was produced on his side to substantiate his defence. Assailing the approach of the learned trial Court, when appeal was filed, the learned first appellate Court repeating the same mistake affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court, with a result, the defendant has filed the present second appeal. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Courts below have failed to take note that the alleged agreement of sale dated 06.03.2002 was admittedly signed only by the defendant, therefore, if the case of the plaintiff is accepted that there has been a sale agreement with consent free from any coercion, both parties to the agreement should have appended their signatures, but, in the present case, only the signature of the defendant was appended in the alleged agreement of sale dated 06.03.2002, marked as