A document providing for the repayment of a loan with a default clause to transfer property constitutes a creditor-debtor relationship rather than a contract for sale, justifying a simple money decree when the claim for specific performance fails.

JUDGMENT:

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 13.02.2012 in A.S.No.188 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge (FTC) Nellore, (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in reversing the decree and judgment dated 17.08.2005 in O.S.No.51 of 1994 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant No.1 herein is the defendant No.1, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.4 to 14 are the defendant Nos.2 to 12 before the trial Court. The appellant No.1 died during the pendency of the second appeal and the appellant No.2 is added as the Legal Representative of the deceased Appellant No.1.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.51 of 1994, on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a requisite sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 28.09.1991 and for costs.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.188 of 2005 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 13.02.2012 in A.S.No.188 of 2005, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal suit by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

6. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.51 of 1994, is as follows:

The defendant No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiffs on 28.09.1991, for his necessities and became indebted to them and the defendant No.1 agreed to repay the said sum before 28.09.1992 and delivered the possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant No.1 executed a stamped agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs on the same date i.e. on 28.09.1991, agreeing interalia that if the defendant No.1 paid the said amount to the plaintiffs, they would have to cancel the said agreement and return it to the defendant No.1 and that if he committed default, the defendant undertook to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs at their expense. The plaintiffs further pleaded that despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 had been postponing to repay the amount and after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said agreement, the defendant No.1 had been postponing to execute the requisite sale deed on some pretext or the other.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.1 and his son asked the plaintiffs to be present before the District Registrar’s Office, Nellore, for the purpose of the said execution of the registered sale deed, but the defendant No.1 and his son failed to turn up at the District Registrar’s Office, Nellore, on the agreed date. The plaintiffs further pleaded that they got issued a legal notice dated 06.02.1994, to the defendant No.1, stating to execute the said sale deed, in reply to that legal notice, the defendant No.1 issued a reply notice dated 05.03.1994, with all false allegations and also alleged that the said agreement of sale is a forgery. Hence, the present suit.

7. The defendant No.1 filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written sta