IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming a different nature of a transaction, and specific performance can be granted if a valid contract exists and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform.

JUDGMENT :

The instant Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendants and their legal representatives. The respondents herein are the plaintiff and her legal representatives.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which give rise to the instant second appeal is that; the defendants are the absolute owner of the suit property. The first plaintiff entered into a registered sale agreement with the defendants on 15.07.1999 agreeing to purchase the suit properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and on the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid as an advance. The time for performance was fixed as two years and the balance sale consideration to be paid is Rs.25,000/-. According to the plaintiff, since June 2000, the plaintiff has been requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed. However, for one reason or the other, the defendants were evading to execute the sale deed. In the meanwhile, the defendants were attempting to alienate the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit for specific performance and also for other reliefs.

4.(a) The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by contending that he is the small time vendor who sells Muruku in the old bus stand of Tiruppur for the past 20 years. He also stated that the alleged sale agreement dated 15.07.1999 is not at all a sale agreement and the same was executed only as a security for loan transaction. This defendant also disputes the ready and willingness of the plaintiff. It was further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff is a local financier and that he approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.30,000/-. In order to advance loan, the plaintiff demanded a sale agreement in their favour. Therefore, as per the demand made by the plaintiff, on 15.07.1999, a sale agreement was executed by the defendant as a security.

(b) It was the further contention of the 2nd defendant that she being an illiterate woman, she did not know the contents of the sale agreement. It was the specific contention of the defendants that, on the date of the execution of the sale agreement, dated 15.07.1999, one Mr.Dhandapani, son of Mr.Ramasamy Udayar and another son Mr.Periasamy were present at the time of the execution of the sale agreement and also while borrowing the loan. This defendant further submits that on executing the sale agreement, the plaintiff has given a sum of Rs.27,000/- after deducting one month interest of Rs.3,000/-. It was further stated that the defendants approached the plaintiff on 15.08.1999 with a request to reduce the rate of interest from Rs.10/- per month for Rs.100/- , to Rs.3/- per month for Rs.100/-. However, the plaintiff refused to reduce the rate of interest, but intimidated the defendants either to pay the loan amount or to execute the sale deed after receipt of the balance amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff has kept quiet for some time, and latter came forward with a false suit for specific performance. It is the submission of the defendants that when the plaintiff has allegedly paid a substantial amount, fixing two years period to pay the remaining paltry sum of Rs.25,000/- would emphatically establish the loan transaction. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

Evidence, Documents and Finding of the both the Court below:-

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff has examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2, and marked 7 documents as Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendants, 3 witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and 3 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B3.

6. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, has disbelieved the case of the defendants and has found that the sale agreement dated 15.07.1999 was entered into only to sell the property. The Trial Court has further found that by virtue of Ex.B1-Sale Deed, one Mr.Jayaprakash [DW3] al