SIKKANAN Vs. GANESH MURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant as an appellant has come forward with this second appeal, challenging the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86 of 2012, by granting decree of specific performance stating that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed suit for specific performance on the basis of sale agreement dated 07.03.2009 stating that the appellant herein has entered into the sale agreement for a sum of Rs.2,65,500/ - and Rs.2,00,000/ - has been paid as advance. Even though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract on 07.03.2009 and the plaintiff also has paid a sum of Rs.35,000/ -, for which he has also made endorsement and subsequently, he is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence, after issuance of notice, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

(2.) The appellant herein, as defendant has raised a plea that the document was given as security purpose for borrowal of amount and he is not willing to perform the contract. He has further submitted that in the plaint itself, it was stated that the total sale consideration was agreed for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/ -, whereas, in the agreement, it was stated as Rs/.2,62,500/ -.

(3.) 4.The trial Court, after considering both sides and perusing the documents, framed necessary issues, decreed the suit, against which, the defendant has preferred appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2015 before the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, where the appeal was dismissed, against which, the second appeal has been filed.