P. KALAIYARASAN, J.

This Appeal Suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, dated 05.06.2017, partly decreeing the suit directing the defendant to refund to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the suit and 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation with costs and dismissing the suit with respect to the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement.

2. The plaint averments are as follows :

The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale agreement on 11.06.2012 whereby the defendant agreed to sell her suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- by paying the advance of Rs.6,40,000/- and also agreed to get sale deed executed within 18 months from the date of agreement by paying the balance sale consideration. On the date of sale agreement, original title deeds were also handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in spite of the same, the defendant evaded to execute the sale deed with malafide intention. The plaintiff issued a legal notice, dated 23.11.2013 asking the defendant to come to Sub-Registrar on 05.12.2013 to execute the sale deed. Though the plaintiff was waiting with the balance sale consideration and the Demand Draft towards registration charges and stamp duty, the defendant had not turned up. The defendant sent a reply, dated 11.12.2013 with false allegations, for which the plaintiff sent a rejoinder on 13.12.2013.

3. The defendant in her written statement denied the execution of sale agreement and receipt of advance amount as false. The plaintiff's close relative Mr. Bhawarlal is running a money lending business in a portion of the ground floor of the suit property whereas the defendant is residing in the upstairs. The defendant is an illiterate. She approached the said Bhawarlal seeking finance assistance to build an upstairs portion. In order to provide loan the said Bhawarlal sought mortgage of the suit property. Hence the defendant went to the Sub-Registrar Officer to register only a mortgage deed in favour of the said Bhawarlal. But it is now understood that a sale agreement was entered into by her and the plaintiff. The defendant at no point of time wanted the suit property to be sold to anyone. The alleged agreement of sale is the fraud played upon by the defendant and hence the sale agreement is null and void in the eye of law. The defendant received Rs.2,50,000/- through two cheques and she is liable to pay that amount to the plaintiff. The defendant has been paying interest for the said loan amount and the said Bhawarlal does not issue any receipt for the same. The alleged sale agreement is an invalid document that was executed by no intention to act upon it. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek the discretionary relief.

4. The trial Court framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, partly decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,50,000/- with interest and dismissed the suit with regard to the relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this Appeal Suit.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the trial Court is not correct in going against the contents of the document and relying upon the oral evidence. It is further argued that in the absence of any document, the trial Court should not have considered the contention of the defendant that the suit land assigned to the defendant under the scheme for SC & ST cannot be transferred.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant inter alia argued that the trial Court after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in threadbare manner has rightly decreed