J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.06.2018, passed in A.S.No.19 of 2017, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.01.2017, passed in O.S.No.19 of 2016, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur.

2. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. For easy reference, the parties are referred to as per the ranking in the original suit.

4. According to the plaintiff, on 03.03.2004, the defendant entered into a sale agreement with him for the sale of the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to the defendant and the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid within a period of two years. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and ready with the balance sale consideration, however, the defendant delayed to perform his part of contract despite repeated requests. In such circumstances, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. Despite receipt of the legal notice, the defendant neither replied nor come forward to execute sale deed. However, the defendant met the plaintiff's lawyer and requested not to file suit against him as he will execute sale deed within two months. Subsequently, since defendant did not honour, the the plaintiff issued another notice to the defendant on 04.05.2006, for which also the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff is always ready with the balance sale consideration and ready to deposit the balance sale consideration as and when Court directs him to do so. The defendant's brother also agreed to sell the remaining portion of the suit property to the plaintiff and executed a sale agreement to the plaintiff on 23.04.2004. Since the defendant's brother did not execute sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.330 of 2006 and it is pending. Though the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant wantonly delayed the execution of sale deed. Hence, the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendant, the suit is not maintainable both in law and on facts. The defendant never intended to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. There is no necessity for him to sell the suit property. The defendant was taken to Uppiliyapuram Sub Registrar Office under the guise of registering mortgage deed, but the plaintiff fraudulently created a sale agreement and obtained his signature. The defendant denied the execution of sale agreement dated 03.03.2004. As the alleged sale agreement is null and void, the plaintiff cannot claim specific performance based on the illegal document. The defendant is having two sons and since the suit property is an ancestral property, his sons are entitled to half share in the suit schedule property. Hence, it is not possible for the defendant to execute a sale agreement. Further, when a huge sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was alleged to have been paid as advance, fixing two years time for the payment of remaining meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- itself raises a doubt. Even during the year 2004 itself, the value of the suit property was worth about Rs.3,00,000/-. In such circumstances, no prudent man would agree to sell the property for the meager amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. As alleged by the plaintiff, no legal notice was issued within the contract period of two years and in fact, he met the plaintiff's advocate after receipt of the notice. Since the plaintiff demanded 3% interest for the loan amount lent by him, no compromise was effected. In fact, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and for security purpose, the plaintiff obtained the defendant's signature in an empty pronote and