Fraud and deception vitiate proceedings, and equitable jurisdiction must prevent legal fraud.

1. The second defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant, and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiff and first defendant respectively before the trial Court. The plaintiff/first respondent herein filed the suit with the following prayer;

“i. to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the sale agreement dated 25.07.2007 executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- from the plaintiff, failing which the Court may execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule of property;

ii. for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men and agent from alienating or encumbering the suit property till the disposal of the suit.”

The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 12.08.2011, passed in O.S.No.202 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S.No.13 of 2013, vide Judgment dated 27.03.2014. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. By consent, the second appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. The parties are referred to herein according to their ranking before the trial Court, for the purpose of convenience.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second defendant submitted that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 20.06.1996, bearing document No.3513 of 1996. The first defendant had executed a registered power deed dated 13.06.2006, bearing document No.532/2006, in favour of the second defendant, offering him to sell the suit property. Thereafter, a sale agreement was executed between the second defendant and the plaintiff on 25.07.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- and, on the date of sale agreement, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid as advance and, as per the sale agreement, the second defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed by producing all the documents viz. Encumbrance Certificate, patta, etc. to the plaintiff, after paying necessary tax and agreed to register the sale deed either in favour of the plaintiff or his authorized officer, upon receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- from the plaintiff. The said sale agreement further states that if the plaintiff fails to come forward for registration of the sale deed within the stipulated time of three months, he would forfeit the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh paid by him to the second defendant and if the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the schedule mentioned property by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- and the second defendant did not come forward to perform the sale agreement, then the plaintiff would be entitled to file necessary suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 25.07.2007 through the Court of law by depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- and then to get the sale agreement registered in his favour through Court. When the matter stood thus, learned counsel pointed out that the plaintiff/first respondent came to the second defendant/appellant stating that he was unable to pay back the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-. Accepting the said version of the plaintiff, the second defendant proceeded to cancel the sale agreement dated 25.07.2007 by executing the cancellation deed dated 22.10.2007. On the date of cancellation, while repaying the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiff out of sympathy, the appellant agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards interest, however, the plaintiff insisted for Rs.25,000/- towards interest on the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh; and the said sum demanded towards interest being exorbitant, the appellant/second defendant refused to pay the balance amount to