This Memorandum of Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.3.2008 and made in the Appeal in A.S.No.69 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.IV), Bhavani, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.7.2007 and made in the suit in O.S.No.102 of 1999 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit whereas the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the respondent may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the appellants be referred to as the defendants wherever the context so requires.

4. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Barathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The plaintiff had filed the above suit against the defendants seeking the relief of specific performance directing the defendants to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the suit property in his favour and to receive the balance of sale price. In case, if the defendants fail to do so, the sale deed may be executed and registered by the Court on behalf of the defendants in his favour and also for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any kind of alienation or any kind of encumbrance in favour of third parties in respect of the suit property.

6. Alternatively, he had also sought the relief of repayment of advance amount of Rs.88,000/-with subsequent interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of realisation of the entire amount and also for creating a charge over the suit property for the proper repayment of the advance amount with interest accrued thereon.

7. As it is seen from the averments of the plaint, the defendants had entered into a registered sale agreement with the plaintiff on 21.8.1997 agreeing to sell the suit property for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendants had also received a sum of Rs.88,000/-from the plaintiff as an advance towards the part and parcel of the sale consideration. In the agreement, it was stipulated that the defendants shall execute the sale deed within a period of two years after receiving the remaining balance of sale consideration of Rs.12,000/-. Despite repeated requests were made, the defendants had been evading to execute and register the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 26.6.1999. Even after the receipt of the said notice, the defendants had not come forward to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the above suit was filed.

8. On the other hand, the defendants have contended that the document dated 21.8.1997 was executed only as a security for repayment of the loan borrowed by them from the plaintiff. In fact, the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.88,000/-from the plaintiff and it was agreed to repay the principal amount with interest at Rs.3 per Rs.100 per month. Since the plaintiff had insisted to execute a document styled as agreement of sale as security for repayment of Rs.88,000/-, the defendants were made to execute the said document. Virtually, the plaintiff had executed a Varthamana Deed on 21.8.1997 acknowledging the loan transaction which took place between them.

9. It is the specific contention of the defendants that they had repaid a major portion of the principal amount along with interest and only a small portion was due to be repaid. The defendants have also contended that, at no point of time, they had entered into any contract with the plaintiff to sell the suit property and there was also no privity of contract between them in respect of the suit property. According to them, the transaction was only a loan transaction. They have further contended that they had totally repaid to an extent of Rs.70,000/-towards interest and having received the said amount subsequent to the