S. NAGAPANDI Vs. K. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.100 of 2008, having tasted success before the trial Court, but, suffered a reversal before the first Appellate Court, is the appellant herein. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial court.

(2.) Facts necessary for the current purpose are that the plaintiff laid a suit for specific enforcement of a registered agreement to sell the suit property, dtd. 3/9/2007, and marked as Ext.A-1, under which he had agreed to pay a consideration of Rs.1.65 lakhs for the purchase of the suit property, and alleges he had paid Rs.1.60 lakhs as advance payment, and that when his notice (Ext.A-2) requiring the defendant to perform his part, did not bring in desired results.

(3.) The defence was an one-liner: The plaintiff is a money lender, that there has been continuous transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that Ext.A-1 sale agreement was only intended to secure a loan transaction.