NAGARAJAN Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second defendant in OS No.79 of 2007 has come up with this Second Appeal, challenging the decree for specific performance granted by the Courts below.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the defendants entered into an agreement of sale on 19.05.2005, agreeing to sell the properties subject matter of the agreement for a total consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. On the date of the agreement, the defendants received a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- as advance leaving a balance of Rs.4,000/-. A period of one year was fixed for performance of the agreement. Since the defendants did not come forward to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the sale deed despite demands, the plaintiff had issued a notice on 17.04.2006, calling upon the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The said notice was replied to on 30.12.2006, by the defendants, denying the suit agreement and claiming that is a rank forgery. It is also stated that the defendants had borrowed monies from the plaintiff and the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendants in non-judicial stamp papers and two blank papers. In view of the said reply, the plaintiff came forward with the suit seeking specific performance on 11.09.2007.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit agreement is not true. It is also claimed that the plaintiff is a money lender and the defendants had borrowed monies from the plaintiff on various occasions and in order to secure those debts, the plaintiff obtained the agreement of sale dated 19.05.2005 as a collateral security. It was contended that the agreement of sale is nominal and is not intended to be acted upon. It is also claimed that borrowings were made for the fourth defendant's marriage which took place on 06.07.2003. It was also pointed out by the defendants that there were two other agreements dated 23.04.2005. One such agreement was entered into between the defendants and Muruganantham agreeing to sell the second item of suit properties and another agreement with Anjalaiammal, wife of the plaintiff by the defendants agreeing to sell the first item of suit properties. Since those agreements were also agreements that were executed as security for borrowing on the repayment of the monies due, those two agreements were returned to the defendants.