R. Subramanian, J.

1. The 1st defendant who suffered a decree for refund of advance is the appellant. The suit O.S. No. 28 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. 1, Erode was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he has entered into an agreement of sale on 29.07.2003 in and by which the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15,93,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid advance Rs. 1,00,000/- on the date of the agreement. The agreement stipulates that further advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- is to be paid on or before 17.09.2003 and the balance sale price has to be paid on or before 15.03.2003. According to the plaintiff he came to know that certain third parties had filed suits and obtained orders of attachment of the suit property. Therefore, at the instance of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff had discharged the debts to the tune of Rs. 6,80,000/- in favour of Tmt. V.K. Lakshmi and her husband Kuppusamy, who had filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant.

2. The plaintiff caused a notice on 24.02.2004 seeking refund of advance amount. The 1st defendant sent a reply dated 27.02.2004 through his counsel denying the very agreement dated 29.07.2003. The claim of the plaintiff regarding payment of debt has also been denied by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff came forward with the above suit on 27.04.2004 seeking refund of a sum of Rs. 7,80,000/- with interest at 12 per annum. The first defendant died pending suit. His wife and children have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement contending that he never executed the alleged agreement dated 29.07.2003.

3. He would further contend that the agreement has been created in collusion with his alleged creditors namely, Tmt. V.K. Lakshmi and her husband Kuppusamy, who are the relatives of his wife Savithiri. The 1st defendant has also contended that the suit agreement is a forgery and the signatures as well as the endorsement found in Ex. A2, were not made by him. The second defendant filed a separate written statement claiming that she is not aware of the agreement. She would claim that the defendants 2 to 4 are also entitled to shares in the suit property. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement claiming that the suit properties are ancestral and as per the compromise dated 13.01.2003 the defendants 2 to 4 are also entitled to shares. It is also claimed that a suit for partition has been instituted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants against the 1st defendant.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. 1, Erode framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the agreement dated 29.07.2003 between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is true and valid?

2. Whether the plaintiff has discharged the debts of the 1st defendant under the decree in O.S. Nos. 212 and 208 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani and O.S. No. 308 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court Erode?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge under Section 55(6) of the Transfer of Property Act?

5. Whether defendants 2 to 4 are liable for the suit claim?

6. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?"

5. On the side of the plaintiff PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A1 to A40 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.I and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was produced.

6. The learned Trial Judge on comparison of signatures in Exs. A1, Ex. A2, Ex. A39 and Ex. A40 with the admitted signatures concluded that the Ex. A1 agreement is true and valid. Relying upon the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as well as Exs. A18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 38 the learned Trial Judge concluded that the plaintiff had paid money and discharged the debts of the 1st defendant. Upon the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial J