R. Subramaniam, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.336 of 1993, is on appeal, challenging the preliminary decree for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, contending that the plaintiffs had certain financial transactions with the defendant and in order to settle the dispute, it was agreed that the plaintiffs should pay a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/- in full quit of the amount payable by them to the defendant. It was also agreed that in discharge of a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/-, the plaintiffs should execute a sale deed in respect of their property situated at Netaji Road, Erode.

3. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the said property was worth about Rs. 4,08,000/- and in order to avoid the huge expenditure on stamp duty, the sale deed was registered for a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/-. For the balance Rs. 2,25,000/-, the defendant had executed a promissory note on 26.03.1990, i.e., the date on which the sale deed was executed and presented for registration. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dated 26.03.1990, was handed over to them by the defendant with an intention of creating mortgage in respect of the suit property as security of payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- which was covered by the promissory note.

4. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant who was in a dominating position, extracted a varthamanam letter reciting that the plaintiffs were appointed as agents of the defendant for taking delivery of possession of the property from the tenant and hand over the same to the defendant. In the said varthamanam letter, the agency commission was fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- and a period of one year was fixed for plaintiffs to evict the tenant and hand over the possession to the defendant. The varthamanam letter also contains several other clauses which may not be very germane for disposal of the appeal.

5. The said varthamanam letter was also dated 26.03.1990. Within a month, i.e, 23.04.1990, the defendant addressed a letter to the plaintiffs, cancelling the varthamanam letter and seeking return of the original documents deposited as well as the promissory note. The plaintiffs sent a reply to the same on 07.05.1990. The present suit was filed on 22.03.1993, seeking a preliminary decree on the alleged equitable mortgage created by the defendant as security for re-payment of sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- which according to the plaintiffs is the balance of the sale consideration under the sale deed Exhibit A2 dated 26.03.1990.

6. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the claim that the sale price was fixed at Rs. 4,08,000/- is false. He would contend that the plaintiffs borrowed money from him and he had filed five suits for recovery of money as well as insolvency proceedings against the plaintiffs. According to him a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was due and payable to him in the year 1990 and when the plaintiffs approached for settlement, he agreed to take a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/- in full quit and also accepted the sale of the property in his favour in discharge of the said outstanding dues. He denied the fact that the sale price was fixed at Rs. 4,08,000/- and a sale deed was executed for Rs. 1,83,000/-. The claim of the plaintiffs that a promissory note was executed as security for re-payment of a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- which, according to the plaintiffs, represents the balance of sale consideration under the sale deed dated 26.03.1990 was specifically denied.

7. The defendant would contend that the said amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was fixed only as agency commission to enable the plaintiffs to evict the tenant and hand over vacant possession. It is the further contention of the defendant that since he found that the plaintiffs were acting against his interest and they were not taking any steps in the right direction for the eviction of the tenant, he was forced to terminate the said agency by his notice dat