An agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on the property, and sale is a transfer of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No. 138 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam on 07.03.2003 by which it has reversed the decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No. 784 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, on 30.07.1999.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 784 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vanur, is the appellant herein.

2. The suit in O.S.No. 784 of 1995 was originally filed before the Sub Court at Tindivanam and numbered as O.S.No. 188 of 1995 and had then been transferred to the District Munsif Court at Vanur was renumbered as O.S.No. 784 of 1995. It was filed by the plaintiff Kuppuswamy Pillai against two defendants Swaminatha Thanthiriyar and Ramamurthi Pillai, seeking a Judgment and Decree directing the first defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,300/- and in default for the Court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the first defendant and in the alternate to direct the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the earnest money received under the suit sale agreement from the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property under the guise of any sham and nominal document and for costs of the suit. By Judgment dated 30.07.1999, the suit was decreed for the relief of specific performance.

3. The defendants then filed A.S.No. 69 of 1999 before the Sub Court at Tindivanam, which appeal suit was then transferred to the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam and renumbered as A.S.No. 138 of 2002. By Judgement dated 07.03.2003, the Appeal was allowed and the grant of relief of specific performance by the trial Court was set aside and in the alternate, a decree was passed for return of the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- together with interest.

4. Questioning that Judgment, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the finding of the first Appellate Court that the agreement of sale Ex.A-1 is not valid is legally sustainable in as much as it has failed to note that the property has been allotted to the share of the 1st respondent and as such it is his absolute property?

2. Whether the finding of the 1st appellate Court that Ex.B-1 is valid and binding is legally sustainable in as much as it has not considered that Ex.B-1 has been created only to defeat the rights under Ex.A- 1?”

6. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the second respondent/first defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as 3rd to 7th respondents.

O.S.No. 784 of 1995 – District Munsif Court, Vanur:

7. The plaintiff Kuppuswamy Pillai claimed that the suit schedule property belonged to the first defendant Swaminatha Thanthiriyar. He offered to sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs.27,300/- and had received an advance of Rs.5,000/-. A sale agreement was also entered into on 01.09.1995. The balance sale consideration was to be paid within three months and the sale deed was to be executed on receipt thereof. It was stated that the first defendant had however executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant Ramamurthi Pillai. It was stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had also demanded the first defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour on 07.09.1995. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property. In view of aforesaid circumstances, the suit had been filed for the reliefs stated.

8. The suit property was situated in Vanur in Nesal Village, Vanur, Villupuram District, in dry S.No. 106/2 measuring 0.55 cents out of a total area of 1.74 acres.

9. The second defen