The main legal point established is the validity of the sale agreement, the payment made by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and the discharge of the mortgage, which influenced the Court's decision to grant the alternative relief of refund.

1. The defendant in a suit for specific performance being aggrieved by the decree granted by the I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.88 of 2012 has filed the above appeal only for the alternative relief.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and accordingly, an agreement was entered into on 07.05.2003. An advance of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) was paid and three years time was fixed for completion of the sale. The plaintiff, later, came to know that the property was under hypothecation with the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank at Thalugai, which was not revealed by the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement. As the plaintiff was under the impression that there is no encumbrance over the property, he approached the defendant to execute the sale deed as agreed. When the plaintiff came to know about the above said mortgage, he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 16.06.2003, another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 23.07.2003 and a further sum of Rs.40,000/- on 04.08.2003 to the bank and obtained necessary receipts for the same. Though as per the agreement, only Rs.50,000/- was the balance sale consideration to be paid, the plaintiff had paid an excess amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Bank on behalf of the defendant. While so, on 07.01.2006, the defendant, with an intention to defraud the plaintiff, sent a legal notice denying the payments and also alleging that the sale agreement itself is a forged one. The said notice was suitably replied by the plaintiff on 22.01.2006. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance with an alternate relief of refund of amount paid by the plaintiff.

3. Denying the facts set out by the plaintiff, the defendant had contested the suit contending that the sale agreement itself was never executed and no amount was received from the plaintiff. It is stated by the defendant that he was running a meat stall and the plaintiff was doing brokerage business by supplying goat and chicken, and was getting commission for the same. As the plaintiff was familiar with the signature of the defendant, the agreement has been forged by him. The defendant further admitted the borrowal of money from the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Thalugai. The defendant has sent a legal notice on 07.01.2006. In the additional written statement, it is contended by the defendant that the payment of the plaintiff to the bank on behalf of the defendant was without his consent and the defendant cannot be held liable for the same. Raising the above said defence, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed appropriate issues. In order to prove the case, on the side of the plaintiff, 3 witnesses were examined as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, and as many as 6 documents have been exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A.6. On the side of the defendants, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 and as many as 9 documents have been exhibited as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B9.

5. The trial Court, upon considering oral and documentary evidence and upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels, had dismissed the suit, insofar as relief for the specific performance is concerned, however, granted the relief of refund of amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.55 of 2006 dated 11.08.2011, the defendant has filed an appeal in A.S.No.88 of 2012 dated 12.08.2013. The first appellate Court, upon considering the materials placed before the Court, confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent judgment passed by the Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

6. When the Second Appeal came up for admission, only notice was ordered. By consent, this second appeal itself is taken up for final dispos