JUDGMENT :

R. Tharani, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel on both the side.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 43 of 2007 dated 08.04.2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 16 of 1999 dated 27.04.2007 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 16 of 1999 before the learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai for a prayer of specific performance and an alternative prayer of repayment of advance amount with compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) and the suit was decreed by the trial Court. Against which, the respondent herein has filed an appeal in A.S. No. 43 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. The appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court. Against the judgment and decree, the appellant herein has filed this second appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The suit property belongs to the defendant. On 26.12.1994, the defendant has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of the property. The sale amount was fixed as Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only). An advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) was paid on that date itself and the time for execution is fixed as three years. When the plaintiff approached the defendant during the year 1997, the defendant told the plaintiff that he will be returning back to India during the year 1998 and he will execute the sale deed at that time. Again when the plaintiff approached the defendant during the first week of September in 1998, the defendant claimed extra amount and refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff sent a legal notice on 17.09.1998. The defendant sent a reply notice with false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. The brief substance of the written statement filed by the defendant is as follows:

There is no agreement as stated by the plaintiff. It is wrong to state that the defendant without intimating the petitioner went abroad during the year 1995. The husband of the plaintiff was working in the oil mill of the defendant. There is no chance for the defendant to go without the knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendant entrusted the mill under the administration of the plaintiff's husband. He was not maintaining the accounts properly. After the return of the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff demanded the balance salary and the defendant refused the same, as there is no balance salary to be paid. Only with that motive, the plaintiff has filed this suit.

6. The brief substance of the additional written statement filed by the defendant on 29.05.2005, reads as follows:

The defendant was residing with her family in Kiramangam Village. The defendant with the help of the plaintiff's husband take visa and went to Qathar and after earning in Qathar, she came back to India after two years.

The defendant purchased the suit property and she run an oil mill and the plaintiff's husband was working in that mill. The plaintiff's husband and his friend Natarajan arranged for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the defendant and they obtained the signature of the defendant in plain stamp papers and using the stamp paper, this sale agreement was created.

7. The brief substance of the second additional written statement filed by the defendant reads as follows:

Only with a motive to defrauds the suit property, the sale agreement was created. There was no necessity for the defendant to sell the property. The plaintiff was not having sufficient means to purchase the property. The suit property was worth more than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) at the time of alleged sale agreement. There was no necessity to fix the time limit as three years.

8. The reply statement given by th