JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 made in O.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Theni, Campt at Periyakulam.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, dated 20.11.2014 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2012. The appellants are the defendants.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance basing upon the sale agreement dated 16.02.2012 entered into between himself and the appellants/defendants in respect of the suit property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only). Time for performance of contract is agreed at three months; as agreed, the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract; but, the defendants evaded to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration; on 14.05.2012, the plaintiff gave a legal notice to the defendant by calling upon him to go to the Sub Registrar Office on 15.05.2012 and get the sale deed executed after receiving the balance sale consideration; but, the defendants came in person and requested the plaintiff that they would execute the sale agreement after two months and for which, the plaintiff also accepted; as agreed, the defendant did not execute the sale deed and hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

3.The defendants contested the suit by contending that the sale agreement was not executed with an intention to sell the suit property; but it has been executed only as a security for a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) availed by the defendants from the plaintiff; It was assured by the plaintiff that after the loan amount was repaid, he would cancel the agreement; to that effect, an unregistered mortgage deed was also executed on the same day; further, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract; on 14.05.2012, after receiving the telegraphic notice sent by the plaintiff, the first defendant needed to go out of station; after he returned on 16.05.2012, the defendants went and enquired the plaintiff; the plaintiff told that notice was issued by mistake and it was sufficient that the defendants paid Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) loan; he also assured to cancel the sale agreement after the loan amount was repaid to him; only because of that, the defendants did not send any reply notice; the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract; due to the above reasons, the suit should be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the respective parties, the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues:

1.”TAMIL”

2.”TAMIL”

3.”TAMIL”

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.B.1.

6. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge has decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have preferred this Appeal Suit.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the production of Ex.B.1, Undertaking Letter given by the respondent/plaintiff that he would cancel the sale agreement if the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) was repaid to him by the defendants; the trial court failed to see Ex.B.1 is a vital document to adjudicate the suit; the trial court has omitted to note the conduct of the plaintiff, who had waited until the last day and sent a telegram stating that he would wait at the Registration Office; the judgment of the learned trial Judge is illogical and improper and