JUDGMENT

(1)The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the appellant died and the 2nd appellant was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased sole appellant.

(2)The respondent in this Second Appeal, as plaintiff, filed a suit in OS.NO.159/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, for Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale stated to have been executed by the husband of the defendant on 20.09.2001.

(3)The case of the respondent/plaintiff is as follows:-

(4)The husband of the defendant Thiru.Devadoss entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs. The said Agreement of Sale was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Vellore, as Doc.No.5803/2001. The husband of the defendant acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part of the sale consideration and had agreed to get the balance of sale consideration namely, Rs.50,000/- within three years from the date of agreement and to execute the Sale Deed in terms of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

(5)The defendant signed as a witness in the said Agreement of Sale dated

20.09.2001 and she was fully aware of the Agreement of Sale executed by her husband. The said Devadoss, husband of the defendant died on 25.02.2003 leaving behind him, the defendant as the sole legal heir to succeed to his estate. The plaintiff met the defendant on various occasions after the death of the defendant's husband and requested the defendant to execute the Sale Deed as per the terms of Agreement and the defendant was evading under some false pretext. The plaintiff caused a Legal Notice dated 23.06.2003 calling upon the defendant to execute the Sale Deed as per the agreement after receiving the balance of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant, after the receipt of the Legal Notice on 02.07.2003, sent a false reply denying the Agreement of Sale. Stating that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract of sale and she was prepared to deposit the balance of sale consideration, the suit for specific performance was laid by her.

(6)The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement denying the suit Agreement. Though every allegations and averments in the plaint was denied, it is the specific case of the defendant that the property in question was worth more than Rs.5 lakhs even at the time of the Agreement and that, it is the only residential house belonging to the husband of the defendant Devadoss. It is stated that the defendant and her husband Devadoss never intended to sell the property to the plaintiff or anyone, that too, for a paltry sum. It was contended that the suit agreement is only a loan transaction and that the Sale Agreement was executed at the instance of plaintiff as a security for the said loan transaction. In other words, in the written statement, it was contended by the defendant that her husband Devadoss was suffering from some ailments and to meet the medical expenses, he was in need of money and so, he approached the plaintiff and her husband who wanted security for the loan from her husband who agreed to execute a registered Mortgage Deed. The defendant gave some particulars in the written statement about how the plaintiff obtained the signature of the defendant under the pretext that the document is a Mortgage Deed for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also alleged that the defendant has no other house and her husband never ventured to sell the house.

(7)Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and examined one Tr.V.P.Thirugnanasamandam as PW2. The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A4 whereas the defendant did not produce any document. The defendant examined herself as DW1 and examined one other witness by name Thiru Seeli Sabastian as DW2 whose name was also referred to in the written statement.

(8)The Trial Court on the basis of Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale a