The court determined that the agreement was intended as a security for a loan rather than a sale, emphasizing the necessity of proving readiness and willingness for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

N.Sathish Kumar J.

The present appeal has been filed challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court granting alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of sale agreement till the date of realisation. A charge has also been created over the plaint schedule property for recovery of decree amount and costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, insofar as it refused the relief of Specific Performance.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant, being a father and the other defendants, being his daughters, agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- and executed a registered sale agreement on 14.08.2012, after receiving a sum of Rs.50,00,000 as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration should be paid within a period of 23 months from the date of agreement. According to the plaintiff, the said period of 23 months was stipulated to enable the defendants to vacate the dyeing factory situated in the property. Though the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the part of contract, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 12.07.2014, to which the defendants sent a reply dated 24.07.2014 containing false allegations. Hence, the suit for specific performance and also alternative relief.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of the defendants that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as a loan from one Anand at the rate of 12% per annum. As the said Anand insisted to execute the sale agreement, the sale agreement came to be executed in favour of the plaintiff for a security purpose. That apart, the said Anand also obtained signed blank promissory notes and cheques as security. According to the defendants, the said Anand was carrying on finance business and the entire transaction was only a loan transaction. The defendants never agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff at any point of time. After the alleged borrowing, the first defendant was paying monthly interest regularly.

6. In the additional written statement, it is contended that there was no necessity to vacate the dyeing factory and that the same is still in operation. That apart, more than four shops in the property had been let out to the third parties. According to the defendants, the entire sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid by the said Anand through cheque to the first defendant and there was no agreement for sale.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues :-

I) Whether the suit sale agreement intended for sale or loan ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance ?

3) To what relief the plaintiff entitled for ?

8. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Anand was examined as P.W.2 and four documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and the fourth defendant was examined as DW2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7.

9. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. However, the Trial Court granted alternative relief directing the defendants to return the advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Aggrieved by the refusal to g