This appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.9 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The suit in O.S.No.9 of 1989 was filed by the first respondent, as plaintiff, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 03.07.1985 in respect of the suit property. The suit property is a land measuring an extent of 6 cents along with two houses bearing Door Numbers 12/2 and 12/3 in Seevalaperi Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit are as follows:

2.1. The suit property belonged to the defendant / appellant. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale agreement on 03.07.1985 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,13,000/- and a sum of Rs.13,001/- was paid as advance. The defendant disclosed a Government loan on the suit property and there was no other encumbrance over the suit property. The defendant undertook to execute the sale deed free of encumbrance on or before 02.01.1986 on receipt of the balance of sale consideration.

2.2. The plaintiff subsequently paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the defendant as agreed upon on 15.09.1985 and the said payment was endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement itself. Thereafter, another sum of Rs.32,000/- was paid to the defendant on 22.12.1985 and the said payment was also endorsed in the sale agreement.

2.3. Though the plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance and demanded the defendant to produce the original title deeds, the defendant was contending that she had to get permission from Government to dispose of the suit property and that the original deed which was surrendered by her to TWAD Board for securing the loan was not returned to her. Hence, it was only to enable the defendant to get permission from Government and to get the document of title deeds, the defendant was postponing the execution of the sale deed. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff came to know about yet another mortgage executed by the defendant in favour of one Kalyani Ammal for a sum of Rs.17,000/- in the year 1983 which was not disclosed to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is interested in the property, he got the mortgage transferred in his favour by a registered document dated 11.12.1987 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- and that therefore, the defendant is also liable to pay the said sum to the plaintiff. The defendant was unable to fulfil her obligation and started demanding an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to price agreed. Now, the defendant demands more than Rs.50,000/- in addition to the sale consideration which was originally agreed and refused to comply with the terms of the contract. The defendant is also attempting to dispose of the suit property to third party suppressing the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. After taking over possession of the suit property, the plaintiff has made several improvements to the houses. Alterations have been made to the buildings and new kitchen and bath room, have also been put up. New flooring was also laid in the rear and front portion of the house. The plaintiff has also fixed a ladder to upstairs and shelves, etc. All these improvements by spending a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff waited for too long a period for no purpose and ultimately the plaintiff has no option but to file the present suit.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement. The suit agreement dated 03.07.1985 and the receipt of an advance under the agreement was admitted. However, it was contended by the defendant that the plaintiff agreed to pay the entire balance amount and get the sale deed registered within six months from the date of agreement, but did not comply with. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on the date of agreement was specifically denied by the defendant. The defendant admitted the mortgage in respect of one of