The court ruled that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract, justifying the denial of specific performance and allowance for a refund instead.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2015 before the II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam. Challenging the decree in the said suit, directing refund of Rs.14 lakhs, together with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of plaint and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.14 lakhs, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Pleadings: The plaint in brief:

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant for purchase of the suit property, for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs. An agreement was entered into on 12.11.2012 and out of the agreed sale consideration, the plaintiff already paid Rs.13 lakhs. The remaining consideration was agreed to be paid in two years time. The defendant again approached the plaintiff on 20.03.2013, stating that he needs money urgently and the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was recorded by way of an endorsement on 20.03.2013. Yet again on 17.10.2013, further Rs.50,000/- was also borrowed from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to pay only Rs.1 lakh towards balance sale consideration. The plaintiff pleads that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the defendant is trying to encumber the property and has filed the suit for specific performance, with an alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount of Rs.14 lakhs, together with interest at 9% per annum.

3.Written statement of the defendant in brief:

The defendant is the owner of the suit property. However, he never intended to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and that he has received Rs.13 lakhs as advance towards sale price. The defendant denies that he agreed to sell the property within a period of two years from the date of agreement of sale. The defendant contends that the sale agreement is a fabricated document. The defendant also denies receipt of Rs.50,000/- on two occasions, as claimed and alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant’s further contention is that one Vadapalani S/o. Maria Gounder is the employer of the plaintiff, who is a money lender. The defendant admits to have had money dealing with the said Vadapalani over the last five years. The said Vadapalani lent money on security of immovable properties and thereafter, used to coerce the debtors to repay the loan with high rate of interest. The defendant borrowed only Rs.5 lakhs, that too, from the said Vadapalani by depositing his original sale deed with him. At that time, Vadapalani exercised undue influence and obtained the defendant’s signature in blank papers, as security for repayment of the said Rs.5 lakhs. The defendant was not in a position to repay the amount borrowed from Vadapalani, though he had paid exorbitant interest for 22 months. The suit sale agreement has been fabricated by the plaintiff and the said Vadapalani, in order to deprive the defendant of his valuable property. The suit property is worth more than Rs.45 lakhs and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the defendant would have agree to sell the suit property for a mere Rs.15 lakhs. The defendant has settled the loan amount borrowed from Vadapalanai and when the defendant demanded return of the original sale deed, the said Vadapalani has joined hands and colluded with the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance. The alleged endorsements have been brought about, taking advantage of signatures obtained from the defendant in blank papers. The plaintiff, in any event, has not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant also contends that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant therefore prays for dismissal of the sui