JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 11.06.2009 passed in A.S. No.6 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the decree and judgment dated 06.12.2007 passed in O.S. No.74 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur.)

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.74/05 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur. He filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents 1 and 2.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

i. The defendants approached the plaintiff for selling the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-

ii. The sale agreement was executed and registered on 19.09.2002 by the defendants in Document No.948/02 of Rayakottai Sub Registrar Office.

iii. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- towards advance on the date of sale agreement. It was agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- should be paid within a period of 3 years from the date of sale agreement.

iv. Though the plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasions and expressed his willingness to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,000/- and get the sale deed registered, there was no response from the defendants. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds:

i. The suit property is the ancestral property of the first defendant.

ii. The defendants approached the plaintiff for obtaining a loan of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff, instead of executing a mortgage deed, created an agreement of sale for Rs.1,10,000/-. There was no intention on the part of the defendants to create an agreement of sale.

iii. The plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the defendants and calculated interest @ 3% per annum and added Rs.54,000/- (interest amount) to the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and shown Rs.1,04,000/- as sale advance. The plaintiff has claimed interest at an exorbitant rate and therefore, punishable under Usurious Loans Act and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. There was no intention on the part of the defendants to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?

ii. Whether the contention of the defendants that the sale agreement filed by the plaintiff cannot be entertained is correct?

iii. Whether the contention of the defendants that the sale agreement had been a created one is right?

iv. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to A3. The second defendant examined himself, however, no documentary evidence was adduced on his side.

7. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide its decree and judgment dated 06.12.2007 on the following grounds:

i. The sale agreement was executed and registered for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- out of which Rs.1,04,000/- was paid by the plaintiff on the date of sale agreement and hence, the defendants cannot contend that there was no intention on their part to create a sale agreement.

ii. The guideline value of the suit property was Rs.50,000/- per acre and the sale consideration fixed for 2 acres of land as Rs.1,04,000/- cannot be said to be too low.