1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 15.09.2012 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 06.04.2011 passed in O.S.No.178 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

“(a).The lower appellate Court has also failed to see that if at all original document namely patta in the present suit is given as a security for the loan, no person will sign an agreement for sale. The respondent/defendant herein has entered into an agreement of sale and submitted his original patta to the plaintiff/appellant?

(b). Though the respondent/defendant pleads that he is an illiterate and without reading the document signed the document namely Exhibit A1, PW1 has stated that in cross examination that he has read over the content to the respondent/defendant and after that only the respondent/defendant signed Exhibit A1?

(c). Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in calculating the period for filing the suit?

(d). Whether the lower appellate is right in coming to the conclusion that there is no pleading about expressing his willingness in legal notice marked as Exhibit A4?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff/appellant for the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 08.08.2001. According to the plaintiff, in brief, the suit property belongs to the defendant and that he had agreed to convey the same to him for a sum of Rs.12,500/- and accordingly, the sale agreement dated 08.08.2001 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the conveyance of the suit property and on the date of the sale agreement, it is stated that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the defendant had also entrusted the rough patta in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff and thereafter, despite the several repeated demands and requests putforth by the plaintiff to receive the balance sum and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant had been evading the same on some pretext or other and accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff has issued the legal notice on 21.04.2005, however, the same had been returned without service and accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief.

5. The defendant has resisted the plaintiff's case contending that no sale agreement had been executed by him in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to convey the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.12.500/- as putforth in the plaint and also denied the case of the plaintiff that he had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance on the date of the sale agreement and that he had been always ready and willing to pay the balance sum and get the sale deed executed and that it is only the defendant, who had been evading the same on some pretext or other and also the defendant disputed the case of the plaintiff that he had sent the legal notice on 21.04.2005 expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Per contra, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was running a finance concern in the name of P.S.K. Finance and that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him on 08.08.2001 and repaying the same at Rs.400/- per month till 08.02.2002, however, thereafter, on account of the poverty and unemployment, the defendant shifted his residence and unable to pay the borrowed sum and the plaintiff had obtained the agreement from him as security for the loan transaction by obtaining his signature and thumb impression in the paper and also obtained his wife thumb impression and also he had been necessitated to handover