The presence of consensus ad idem is essential for the enforceability of a sale agreement, and separate agreements may supersede the terms of a sale agreement.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.1999 made in A.S.No.37 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.1998 made in O.S.No.1232 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for Specific Performance or in the alternative for the return of the advance amount and for possession.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a registered sale agreement on 03.02.1984 for the sale of the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and advance of Rs.19,000/- was paid towards the sale consideration on the date of the registered sale agreement above referred to and the said sum of Rs.19,000/- was made up as follows, i.e. the first defendant had executed a registered mortgage for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs on 01.07.1982 and the samehad been adjusted on the date of the sale agreement besides Rs.7,100/- paid in cash on the same date, in all amounting to a sum of Rs.19,000/- and the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to conclude the sale within 5 years and it has been agreed between the parties that in the event of the defendants paying a sum of Rs.19,000/- within 3 years from the date of agreement, the plaintiffs should not insist on taking the sale and however, the defendants failed to pay the sum of Rs.19,000/- within 3 years as agreed to and hence, the defendants are bound to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,000/- and execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants, however, failed to honour the terms of the consideration, though the plaintiffs had been always ready to perform their part of the contract and in this connection, a telegraphic notice was sent through their advocate on 18.01.1989 for completing the sale transaction and to the same, a reply has been sent falsely, as if there is no need to execute the sale deed pursuant to the sale agreement and it is false to state that the sale agreement had been entered into only in respect of the loan transaction and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a sale agreement on 03.02.1984 and the same had been entered into only in respect of the loan transaction, for which, the sale agreement was insisted and obtained from the defendants and the terms of the agreement of sale itself would be the testimony to the same. The defendants originally borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiffs under a mortgage deed dated 01.07.1982 and the plaintiffs insisted the payment of the above said amount and as the defendants were not in a position to pay the same, the plaintiffs insisted that the defendants should give their property as security by way of the registered agreement and including the interest and previous balance of Rs.5,000/- amounting to Rs.19,000/- for which, the sale agreement had come to be executed on 03.02.1984 and as per the terms of the agreement, it was specifically agreed to between the parties that the amount has to be paid within 3 years and therefore, there was no consenses between the parties for selling the suit property at the time of the execution of the agreement and hence, the sale agreement is not enforceable in law. Further, on 03.02.1984, the parties have executed an independent agreement, where by, the defendants agreed to pay Rs.380/- per month as interest regularly and in the event of paying entire amount, the plaintiffs had agreed to cancel the sale agreement dated 03.02.1984 and subsequently, the defendants have paid the amounts due to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have also given discharge receipt to