JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J. 

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated August 13, 2018 passed in O.S. No.15 of 2014 by 'the District Court, Karaikal' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the Defendant therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. On December 17, 2013, the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the Suit schedule mentioned property for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-. It was agreed that the sale should be concluded within a period of three months from the date of agreement. It was further agreed that the Defendant shall produce the encumbrance certificate for 31 years, antecedent title deed, survey sketch, receipt for tax payment up to date, patta and also that the Suit Property be measured as per re-survey. On the date of agreement, the Defendant had received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the Plaintiff and the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was to be paid. All these were to be done within the period of three months.

3.1. Despite repeated reminders, the defendant did not perform his part of the contract and did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff further issued a pre-suit notice dated March 20, 2014 after expiry of the agreement on March 16, 2014 calling upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract. The defendant, after the receipt of the notice, remained silent. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present Suit seeking performance of the sale agreement and an alternate relief of refund of advance money with an interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement.

DEFENDANT’S CASE

4. The Defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations made by the Plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant denies the nature, contents and execution of the Sale Agreement. The defendant avers that the plaintiff and his brother T.Sivakumar were running a jewellery shop in the name and style of M/s.Meenam Jewellery. They both were also profession money lenders. The defendant bought jewels worth Rs.10,50,000/- and at that time, also borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintiff's brother with a huge interest at 36% per annum and for the said loan, they obtained unfilled signed promissory notes, two unfilled and signed cheque leaves and also obtained signature in blank stamp paper. The said stamp paper took its place as the first page of Suit Sale Agreement; the second and third pages of the Sale Agreement does not contain defendant's signature. The defendant has never seen the Sale Agreement and have no knowledge of it until the Suit.

4.1. Further, the Suit Property can be easily valued in the neighbourhood at Rs.70,00,000/- as on the date of Suit Sale Agreement and moreover the Defendant was residing there. In these circumstances, there was no need or necessity arose for the defendant to sell the same.

4.2. According to the defendant, there was a delay in paying the monthly interest on and from the month of February 2014 and at that time, the Plaintiff issued the pre-suit notice dated March 20, 2014. After the receipt of notice, the Defendant met the Plaintiff and enquired, at that time, the Plaintiff and his brother promised that they would not take any legal action and directed the Defendant to arrange for repayment of the loan amount. Hence, the Defendant did not issue any reply. The Defendant is ready to repay Rs.5,00,000/- borrowed from the Plaintiff and his brother with interest on and from February 2014. Stating so, the Defendant prayed to dismiss the Suit with costs.

TRIAL COURT

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a direction to the defendant to execute a sale deed i