In suits for specific performance, the burden lies on the defendant to prove claims that a sale agreement was a loan; the plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The defendant in a suit for specific performance is the appellant in the present appeal suit.

2.For the sake of convenience and reference, the respective pleadings of the parties before the Trial Court, is culled out briefly hereunder:

The case of the plaintiff in brief:

The defendant was the owner of the suit property. The defendant agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,12,500/-. On 04.10.2019, a registered sale agreement was executed between the parties and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as advance. For payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.5,62,500/-, one year time was fixed under the agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff, he has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but however the defendant evaded to execute the sale deed. Therefore, on 01.09.2020, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant and despite the said notice, the defendant neither chose to send a reply nor comply with the demands in the said notice, thereby necessitating the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance.

3.The case of the defendant in brief:

The defendant was constrained to borrow Rs.5,00,000/- from third parties for performing the marriage of his grand-daughter, Sivaranjani and it was only to discharge the said loans, the defendant approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff demanded interest at Rs.5/- for Rs.100/- per month and insisted upon a sale agreement being entered into as security. It is therefore the case of the defendant that only under compulsion, the defendant executed the sale agreement on 04.10.2019 and the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was only a loan received by him. According to the defendant, there was no necessity for him to sell the suit property and even on the date of the agreement, the value of the property was more than Rs.60,00,000/- and the defendant being a prudent land owner would have never agreed to give away the property for a throw away consideration of Rs.13,12,500/-. It is also contended that the defendant has paid interest for 10 months. Insofar as the legal notice, the defendant states that on receipt of the said notice, he approached the plaintiff and requested for further time to settle the loan amount. However, despite the same, the plaintiff has approached the Court and sought for specific performance.

4.Issues framed by the Trial Court:

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for?

2) Whether the sale agreement was executed by the defendant to getting hand loan of Rs.7,50,000/- as security?

3) Whether the sale agreement was executed out of compulsion made by the plaintiff?

4) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5.Witnesses examined and exhibits marked before the Trial Court:

During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to A3. One Mr.Mani, an attestor to the sale agreement was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and the witnesses, Mr.Palani and Mr.Suresh were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and one Mr.Murthy was examined as D.W.4 and no exhibit was marked on the side of the defendant.

6.The Trial Court, finding that the agreement of sale was true and not a loan transaction as projected by the defendant and also that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, decreed the suit.

7.The present