JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated January 24, 2020 passed in O.S. No.27 of 2014 by 'the Additional District and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the plaintiff therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that the first defendant is the owner of the Suit Property by virtue of Settlement Deed dated May 22, 2011 executed in his favour by his mother, the second defendant. The first defendant agreed to sell the Suit Property to the plaintiff and entered into a Sale Agreement with the plaintiff on July 24, 2014. The sale price was fixed at Rs.14,00,000/-. On the same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the first defendant as advance. Time for execution of Sale Deed was fixed as three months i.e., on or before October 24, 2014.

3.1. Before the Sale Agreement, the first defendant had executed Power Deed dated April 3, 2014 in favour of his mother, the second defendant. At the time of Sale Agreement, the first defendant handed over a copy of the Power Deed dated April 3, 2014 along with a photo copy of other documents to the plaintiff agreeing to cancel the said Power Deed, in order to fulfil other conditions recited in the Sale Agreement.

3.2. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff expressed the same to the first defendant on several occasions through messengers. The first defendant, not only failed to produce the original Title Deeds within three months as stipulated in the Suit Sale Agreement, but also kept on postponing the completion of sale transaction by giving false hopes and lame excuses.

3.3. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated October 11, 2014 calling upon the first defendant to perform his part of the contract. Accepting the execution of the Suit Sale Agreement, the first defendant falsely alleged in his reply notice dated October 20, 2014 as though the Suit Sale Agreement was executed only as security for re- payment of loans. It is stated in the reply notice that the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff's father and in turn, executed an unregistered Mortgage Deed dated August 16, 2012 in favour of the plaintiff's father. It is further stated that, then the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the Suit Sale Agreement only as a security to the total loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which includes the Rs.50,000/- borrowed under the Mortgage Deed from the plaintiff's father; it is false to state that the plaintiff paid Rs.3,00,000/-, as he paid only Rs.2,50,000/- and the remaining Rs.50,000/- was merely adjusted towards the Mortgage amount.

3.4. Those being the reply notice averments, the plaintiff denied the allegation that mortgage amount of Rs.50,000/- is adjusted or added in the advance amount under the Suit Sale Agreement; the plaintiff paid his own money of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance to the first defendant. The plaintiff is in no way connected with the above said Mortgage transaction of Rs.50,000/- between the plaintiff's father and first defendant, which is still due and not yet discharged.

3.5. Further, the first defendant is indirectly making arrangement to sell the suit property to third parties. Hence, the Suit for Specific Performance and permanent injunction and an alternate relief of refund of advance amount with interest at 12% per annum from the plaint till realization.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The first defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and the same was adopted by the second defendant. The relationship between the defendants is admitted. It was