IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 12453 OF 2023 Geetha W/o. Ravi, Indhra Nagar, Puliymarath thottam, 3^rd street, Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur Tk and Dt.

presently res at No.1/1, Puliymarath Thottam, 3^rd Street, Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur Tk and Dt.

..Appellant(s)

Vs Sivakumar S/o. Iyyasamy, No.52A, B.K.R. Colony, Dharapuram, Tiruppur.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned I Additional District Court, Tiruppur in AS No.5/2017 dated 28.02.2019 partly allowed the judgment and decree of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur in OS No.352/2015 dated 23.12.2016.

For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Arokhiaraj For Respondent(s): Mr.K. Govi Ganesan

JUDGMENT

Challenging the reversal findings with alternative remedy rendered by the first appellate court in A.S.No.5 of 2017 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur arising out of findings rendered in O.S.No.352 of 2015 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, the defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the Suit.

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance stating that on 11.01.2013 the defendant entered into a registered sale agreement with him for a total consideration of Rs.4,14,300/- and received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the same day and for the balance sum, two years period was fixed. The said property belong to her through the registered settlement deed dated 22.08.2012. Therefore, he issued a notice on 26.12.2014, for that, the defendant has issued a reply on 07.01.2015 denying the alleged agreement stating that she borrowed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and as a security for the said loan, the alleged sale agreement was executed. Only in order to meet out her urgent expenses, the loan was obtained, wherein the alleged sale agreement was executed and also contended that he is the person lending money for exorbitant interest. Per month, an amount of Rs.6000/- towards interest was paid and for nearly about 11 months, she paid interest and thereafter, she was unable to pay. Now, she is ready to pay interest. After the reply notice issued on 20.01.2015, there was a compromise entered between the parties. Accordingly, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was given as a loan and the pending interest comes around Rs.30,000/- is liable to be paid by the defendant. In respect of payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, there was a receipt was given by him, thereby both have entered into a joint memo dated 20.01.2015. As per the terms of memo, on payment of interest, he agreed to hand over the original agreement belong to her and the said memo was also witnessed by three witnesses. Therefore, she contended that a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was repaid, as on date, a sum of Rs.30,000/- interest alone is to be paid.

4. Both parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The trial court framed five issues. On considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial judge found that the description of property has not been properly described in the sale agreement. In fact, there is a house property, but as per the description of sale agreement, there was a vacant site, this itself shows that he is not a bonafide purchaser. To that effect, the trial judge relied the tax receipt, E.B. receipt produced on the side of defendant. Therefore, he is not a bonafide purchaser. D.W.3 is the person Valarmathi, who had also borrowed loan from the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial judge has concluded that the plaintiff was a money lender and the sale agreement was executed for receipt purpose, however, there is no description of property in the said sale agreement. As the actual market value of suit property was nearly about Rs.15,00,000/-, the sale agreement was executed only for a total consideration of Rs.4