The decision clarifies that payment patterns and intent ascertain whether an agreement is for sale or loan and confirms readiness and willingness can be substantiated even after delays post-vendor's death.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, whose suit for specific performance and permanent injunction had been dismissed is the appellant before this Court.

2. The facts upon which the plaintiff had approached the Court are narrated herein below, and the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants, respectively, as set out in the suit O.S.No.8722 of 2010 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

Plaintiff's case:

3. The plaintiff would submit that one late P.C.Ramalingam Achari had entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 01.03.1982 with the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in respect of an extent of 2120 sq.ft bearing plot No.182, Old Door No.16, New No.64, Nethaji

6th Street, Lakshmipuram, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.

4.The said P.C.Ramalingam Achari had thereafter constructed two separate dwelling units each consisting of a ground and first floor, with the common passage measuring 6 feet in width and 44 feet in length between the two houses. One house consisted of ground and first floor, both measuring 512 sq.ft and the other house measuring 506 sq,ft and 480 sq.ft in the ground and first floor respectively. The said Ramalinga Achari was residing with his son, the 7th defendant herein in the said property. Besides his son, Ramalinga Achari had three daughters, who are the first and second defendants and another daughter, Sundari who had passed away on 04.07.2005 leaving behind her husband and children, who had been arrayed as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit.

5.The plaintiff would submit that Ramalinga Achari had entered into an agreement of sale on 23.04.2001 with the plaintiff for the sale of an extent of 1260 sq.ft together with the building consisting of ground and first floors measuring 512 sq.ft each together with the 6 feet passage. The total consideration agreed upon was a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and on the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid. Out of this amount, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the daughters, and each of them had signed the receipts, which were witnessed by their respective husbands and the 7th defendant, the son of Ramalinga Achari. A cheque was issued for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by cash. The said Ramalinga Achari had put the plaintiff in possession of the property. The plaintiff had also rented out the property and has been collecting the rents.

6.The plaintiff would submit that on 27.06.2007, the sale deed was executed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour of Ramalingam Achari. On 05.07.2007, the plaintiff had paid the balance sale consideration to the said Ramalinga Achari, who had made an endorsement in the reverse of the agreement. Ramalinga Achari had sought time to execute the sale deed and get it registered as he was not keeping good health. Thereafter, the said Ramalinga Achari passed away on 25.12.2007. The plaintiff thereafter requested the defendants to execute the sale deed and to her shock, the defendants informed the plaintiff that the said sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was a loan and not towards the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit schedule property. They had followed it up with the notice dated 27.01.2009 demanding the plaintiff to vacate the property. A suitable reply was issued by the plaintiff on 16.02.2009 and this was immediately followed up with the filing of the suit.

Written statement of defendants 1 to 6:

7. The 7th defendant remained ex-parte, and it was only defendants 1 to 6 who had contested the suit and filed a common written statement. It was their categoric contention that the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, which was received by Ramalingam Achari was towards a loan. They had also contended that since Ramalinga Achari was not in a position to pay the monthly interest, he had permitted the plaintiff to reside in the suit premises (in short, the defendants had pleaded a usufructuary mortgage). It is their further contention that the said Ramalinga Achari had repaid th