IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP No. 3144 of 2021 P.Manoharan S/o.Padmagounder, Majjid Street, Madhikonpalayam, Dharmapuri Taluk And District.

..Appellant(s)

Vs Kandhasamy S/o.Sivalingam, Muthampatti Village, Eechampaadi Post, Dharmapuri Taluk And District.

..Respondent(s)

SA No. 148 of 2021 This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge Court at Dharmapuri, dated 18.09.2019 in AS.No.35 of 2016 confirming the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri, dated 21.03.2016 in O.S.No.136 of 2004.

SA No. 148 of 2021 For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Valliappan Senior Counsel Assisted.by Mr.T.Deeraj For M/s.PV Law Associates For Respondent(s): V.Sakkarapani

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge Court at Dharmapuri, dated 18.09.2019 in A.S.No.35 of 2016 confirming the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri, dated 21.03.2016 in O.S.No.136 of 2004.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank citied in the suit. The Appellant is the Plaintiff and the Respondent is the Defendant.

3. The case of the appellant is in brief:

(i) The defendant is the owner of the suit property. Due to urgent expenses, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff entered into the Sale Agreement dated 20.04.2000 with the defendant wherein the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.95,000/- and the balance of Rs.5,000/- was agreed to be paid within a period of one year failing which the advance amount paid by the plaintiff shall be forfeited. Thereafter, the defendant entered into a fresh registered Sale agreement dated 12.04.2001 with the plaintiff for sale of the same suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- out of which Rs.95,000/- was paid and the balance of Rs.5,000/- was agreed to be paid within a period of two years. Even though the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract, by paying the balance sale consideration, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Consequently, after exchange of notices, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No.136 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, seeking for the relief of Specific performance and for alternate relief against the defendant.

(ii) In the Written Statement, the defendant has denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the Sale agreement was executed merely as security for the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with monthly repayment of Rs.12,000/- for 25 months. Since the plaintiff could not pay monthly instalment for four months, the plaintiff has filed the suit and he never intended, nor agreed to sell the suit property.

(iii) Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Specific performance?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the Sale Deed to be executed by the defendant?

3. Whether the Sale Agreement was executed as collateral security to the loan amount to have been borrowed from the plaintiff?

4. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

(iv) During the Trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked. (v) The Trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting the alternate relief of refund of advance amount together with interest. Feeling aggrieved, both the plaintiff and the defendant separately filed First Appeals ie. A.S. No.35 of 2016 and A.S. No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court, Dharmapuri respectively. Both the First Appeals were dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff in the suit aggrieved by the findings of the Courts below has filed the prese