JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Sivagangai.

The appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.08.2007 The defendants are the appellants in the above first appeal. The plaintiff and first defendant are brothers. The defendant is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same under a sale deed, dated 12.05.2005 (Exhibit B.6). The plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property which is a coconut garden admeasuring 6 acres and 8 cents in S.Nos.19/7, 19/8A, 19/8B, 19/9, 19/10, 19/11, 19/12A, 19/12B and 19/13 on 22.08.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only). An advance of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on the date of the agreement and the balance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was agreed to be paid within a period of 1 year from the date of agreement. The suit agreement was a registered agreement. As the defendant was evading performance, the plaintiff issued an advocate notice on 06.08.2008 demanding performance to which the defendant replied on 19.08.2008 raising untenable pleas, therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 22.08.2007.

2. The defendant contested the suit and in his written statement referred to the back drop of facts leading to the purchase of the suit property by him vide sale deed dated 12.05.2005. The defendant while denying all the contentions raised in the plaint stated that the sale agreement was executed to enable the plaintiff to raise bank loan for setting up poultry and Diary farm business and that no consideration passed under the agreement. The defendant therefore submitted that the suit deserved to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the both parties framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 22.08.2007 as prayed for?

2. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant has filed the above appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit agreement was executed for enabling the plaintiff to raise loan from the Bank for setting up poultry and Dairy farm business. The learned counsel submitted that absolutely no consideration passed under the agreement. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the lower Court failed to note that the plaintiff did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act and hence ought to have non-suited the plaintiff. The learned counsel referred to the inconsistencies in the plaintiff's side evidence in support of his submissions and prayed that the appeal be allowed.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit sale agreement was a registered agreement and that the submission of the appellant's counsel that the suit sale agreement was executed for enabling the respondent to raise Bank loan is frivolous submission because no Bank would advance loan on a mere agreement of sale. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the plaintiff satisfied the mandatory requirements of Section 16 (C) of Specific Relief Act and in any event neither any plea was raised by the appellant in this regard nor was an issue framed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the defendant's evidence to support his submissions and prayed that there are no merits in the appeal and hence the trial Court judgment and decree should be affirmed.

7. I have heard both side