The burden of proof in establishing the nature of a transaction lies with the party disputing the agreement. Failure to discharge this burden can result in a decision against that party.

1. The defendant in the suit for specific performance, aggrieved by the unanimous decisions of the Courts below, has preferred the above second appeal.

2. The plaintiff, admitting the ownership of the defendant, had entered into an agreement on 15.04.1998 for sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and ten thousand only) and an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) was paid on the same date. The balance consideration of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) was to be paid within an year and complete the sale. The defendant also agreed to handover the original sale deed and possession of the property. Despite the plaintiff being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant was not extending his co-operation. Hence, after issuing the suit notice, the suit was filed.

3. Denying the averments giving rise to the cause of action to the suit, the defendant had stated that the plaintiff is a moneylender and she only borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as hand loan from him. At the instance of the plaintiff, the loan was secured by creating a mortgage over the property and accordingly, title deeds were also handed over to the plaintiff. It is the next contention of the defendant that she, being a Malayalee, not very well acquainted with the Tamil language and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff has brought out the sale agreement, which was intended to be only a mortgage deed.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined one Palaniammal as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on his side. On side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

5. On considering the above pleadings, the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled for decree for specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the second appeal is filed.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court for consideration:

a. Whether the payment of advance amount was 95% of the alleged sale consideration i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.2,10,000/- and the payment of a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- within a period of one year would establish that it is only a loan transaction whether the courts below are correct in granting the relief of specific performance?

b. A prudent person would not pay Rs.2,00,000/- as advance out of Rs.2,10,000/- without even verifying the marketable title of the property and agreed to pay the meagre balance amount of Rs.10,000/- on perusing the documents of the title whether the judgement and decree for specific performance granted by the courts below are not perverse and contrary to the evidence on record?

c. Whether the scope of O.S.No.555 of 2014 was confined regarding permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property and that in O.S.No.579 of 1999 is for specific performance and thus the scope of the two suits are different whether the lower appellate court is correct in holding that the failure to file the appeal against the decree in O.S.No.555 of 2014 would operate as res judicata?

7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that if the respondent/plaintiff had parted with more than 95% of the sale consideration, that is, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the agreed sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, he would not have taken more than an year for paying the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- to get the sale deed executed in his name. It is also contended that the suit property was more than Rs.5,00,000/- worth on the date of the alleged agreement, and as it was intended to be given only as a security, there was no agreement to sell executed by the appellant/defendant. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that Ex.A.1 agreement comprises of four sheets and on the second sheet only half of the page was written and the other half page was left blank and the third and