The main legal point established is that in a specific performance case, the terms of the sale agreement are crucial, and the party resisting specific performance must prove that the agreement was not intended to be acted upon.

The judgment and decree, dated 3.10.2005 made in A.S.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2005 made in O.S.No.36 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, are under challenge in this memorandum of second appeal.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2002, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and the respondent be referred to as the plaintiff wherever the context so require.

4. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are as under:-

a. The suit property belongs to the defendant and as she offered to sell the same, the plaintiff had negotiated with the defendant and the sale price was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- and consequently, they entered into a registered agreement of sale, dated 31.1.2001 and on the date of execution of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to the defendant.

b. It was agreed by both the parties that the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- should be paid within a period of one year from the date of agreement.

c. On 21.3.2001, the defendant had received a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the plaintiff for the marriage of her children. The plaintiff was ready and willing to complete his part of contract even on 21.3.2001. But the defendant represented that the sale deed would be executed after the marriage of her children.

d. Though the plaintiff repeatedly demanding the defendant since June 2001, as the defendant has been postponing the execution of the sale deed, he had caused a notice on 21.12.2001 to specify the date for the registration of the sale deed, as there was no response, the suit has been filed for the following reliefs:-

aa. Pass a decree for specific performance directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement of sale, dated 31.1.2001.

bb. Direct the defendant to deliver possession of the property covered under the sale agreement to the plaintiff.

cc. On the failure to execute the sale deed by the defendant, the court itself may execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and deliver possession of the property through process of court.

5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint.

6. It is stated that the defendant had requested the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet out the marriage expenses of her children in the month of January 2001. The plaintiff had agreed to advance the amount, but demanded usurious interest of 60% p.a. for the principal amount and he further wanted the defendant to execute the sale agreement as security for the principal amount. As there was no other option, the defendant had executed the sale agreement after receiving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also obtained the signatures of the defendant in blank papers and also in stamped papers. Under the said circumstances, the sale agreement is only a sham and nominal as it was obtained only under compulsion and undue influence.

7. It is also stated that the value of the suit property is more than Rs.7,00,000/-, but it was valued only for Rs.1,50,000/-, which itself prove that the sale agreement was executed only as a security for the amount borrowed by the defendant and therefore, the sale agreement is not true.

8. The defendant has not borrowed any amount on 21.3.2001 as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff had forged the signature of the defendant and cooked up the entries in the sale agreement with an ulterior motive to harass the defendant and to extract more money.

9. On receipt of the notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested three months time to repay the amount. Since the plaintiff had agreed for the same, no reply notice was given.

9a. The defendant had also filed an additional writte