IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL AS No. 120 of 2026 and CMP No.3837 of 2026 S. Radhakrishnan S/o. Sundarraj ..Appellant(s)

Vs P.R. Chandran S/o. Late Raju Naidu, ..Respondent(s)

This appeal filed under Section 96 r/w. Order XLI Rule 1 CPC to set aside the decree and judgment passed by I Additional District Court, Coimbatore in O.S.No.486 of 2018 dated 22.04.2024.

For Appellant(s): Mr. B. Nedunzhelian For Respondent(s): Mr. M.S. Seshadri, for Ms. Vindhya Vasini

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

The appeal is filed challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court granting the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the sale agreement and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realisation. The appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance to enforce the contract dated 02.06.2006 or, in the alternative, for directing the defendant to refund the advance amount of sale consideration together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization and for a charge over the suit property.

4. According to the plaintiff, the appellant/defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- and executed a registered sale agreement dated 02.06.2016 after receiving a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as advance. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within 11 months from the date of agreement. The defendant also handed over the title deeds and other relevant documents with regard to the suit property.

5. In the second week of April 2017, when the plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed upon tendering the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.04.2017. The defendant sent a reply containing false allegations. Hence, the suit.

6. The defendant, in the written statement, contended that he had no intention to sell the property and that the transaction was only a loan transaction. According to him, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month. He would further contend that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and the sale agreement was executed only as security for the said loan. The defendant has also paid interest for 17 months to the plaintiff and thereby, disputed the sale agreement .

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues :-

i) Whether the suit sale agreement is true and valid and executed with the intention to sell the suit property ?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with future interest?

iv) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to ?

8. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the power agent of the defendant was examined as DW1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW.2 and DW.3 and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked.

9. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the plaintiff has not established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and therefore, negatived the relief of specific performance. However, considering the admitted receipt of Rs.17,00,000/-, the Trial Court granted alternative relief directing refund of the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of