J VAITHILINGAM Vs. A MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is focussed by the defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2007 passed in A.S.No,93 of 2005 by the Principal District Judge (i.c), Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2005 passed by the Sub Judge, Attur, in O.S.No,203 of 2003, which was filed for specific performance.

(2.) THE defendant entered appearance and filed written statement, setting out various pleas inter alia to the effect that the said agreement to sell emerged only as a security for the repayment of loan and the sale price found set out in the agreement to sale is abysmally low., etc. (b) THE trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining one Arumugam as P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to A.3 were marked. THE defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one Eswaran as D.W. 2. and Ex.B1 was marked. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit and as against which, A.S.No,93 of 2005 was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court.

(3.) A deep reading and poring over the typed set of papers, including the judgments of both the Courts below, would convey and project the facts to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement to sell, whereby the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former, the immovable properties in the schedule of the plaint. However, the defendant committed default in performing his part of the contract, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit. Both the Courts below thoroughly considered the plea of the defendant and held that absolutely there was no shard or shred, scintilla or pint-sized, iota or molecule extent of evidence to support the case of the defendant that in connection with the alleged loan of Rs.2,25,000/- borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, the borrower paid any interest, as claimed by him.