JUDGMENT :

The present Appeal Suit has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Villupuram in OS No.79 of 2014.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit.

3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted suit for specific performance.

4. The suit property belonged to the defendant and the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs on 25.04.2013. On the same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards advance fixing the date of execution of Sale Deed within a period of 18 months. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her par of contract of by paying the balance sale consideration. However, the defendant was not ready to execute his portion of the contract and thus the plaintiff issued legal notice and thereafter instituted the suit for specific performance.

5. The defendant denied the plaint averments and has stated that the plaintiff and her family members are money lenders. They advance loans at high rates of interest on the security of immovable properties.

6. The plaintiff is in the habit of advancing loans against the agreements for sale of immovable properties in the locality. The plaintiff never intended to purchase the suit schedule property nor the defendant ever agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

7. There was no consensus ad idem for completion of sale on the suit schedule property between the plaintiff and the defendant to sell the property. One Mr.Manimaran son of the plaintiff was also doing money lending business. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained an Agreement for Sale in respect of another shop at Rs.4,90,000/- on 16.11.2007 in the name of her son Mr.Manimaran. The defendant paid interest at the rate of 36% per annum alone to the plaintiff. Thus the defendant could not repay the principal sum of Rs.4 lakhs.

8. The plaintiff cancelled the Agreement of Sale dated 16.11.2007 and obtained another Sale Agreement in the name of her son for Rs.4,90,000/-. The defendant had paid Rs.2 lakhs and interest on Rs.4 lakhs. The said Mr.Manimaran cancelled the Sale agreement on 12.10.2010.

9. The defendant denied the averments in the plaint in entirety by stating that the plaintiff was the money lender and in lieu of the loan amount borrowed, the defendant executed the suit Sale Agreement and at no point of time, there was an intention to sell the suit schedule property.

10. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the suit Sale Agreement dated 25.04.2013 is true as alleged by the plaintiff ?

(2) Whether the Sale Agreement is executed in favour of plaintiff or her son as security for the loan availed by the defendant ?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance or alternatively for recovery of advance amount with interest ?

(4) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?

11. On the side of the plaintiff PWs-1 to 3 were examined as witnesses and Exs.A1 to A-4 were marked as documents. On the side of the defendant DWs-1 and 2 were examined as witnesses and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked as documents.

12. Regarding issue Nos.1 and 2, whether the suit Sale Agreement is truly executed in favour of the plaintiff or her son as security to the loan amount, the suit Sale Agreement was executed towards security for the loan amount borrowed.

13. The Trial Court made a finding that the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff had entered the Sale Agreement for some other shop on 16.07.2007. The said Sale Agreement was also marked as Ex.B-2. However, the plaintiff do not remember the sale consideration of Rs.4,90,000/- and Rs.4 lakhs was paid as an advance amount.

14. The plaintiff did not remember whether the defendant refunded the amount or not. However, the suit Sale Agreement was cancelled on 12.10.2009 as per Ex.B