J U D G M E N T

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. Ext.A1 dated 27.11.2006, is the alleged agreement for sale.

2. The court below overruled the defendants'

contentions that Ext.A1 is a fabricated document and it is one, concocted using blank paper signed and obtained from the defendants in connection with the loan availed by them. Accordingly, the suit was decreed directing performance of the contract.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ext.A1 is a fabricated document and be the defendants reside in a building which is constructed in the suit property and that the transaction is essentially one of lending and not a contract for sale.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that even subsequent to the decree, there were transactions touching the property and therefore, the defendants cannot hold out any equity in their favour as against the decree for specific performance. He pointed out that the plea that the agreement is only a security arrangement for the loan transaction can never be sustained having regard to the fact that the reverse of the first page of the agreement