The defendant in a suit for specific performance for sale is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff on the allegation that on 20.4.1998 he entered into Ext A1 agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property belonging to the appellant, the sale consideration was Rs.3,50,000/-, out of which the respondent paid Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of the agreement and obtained possession of the property, the transaction had to be completed in three months, in spite of demand by notice, she failed to execute the sale deed. The first respondent prayed for a decree for specific performance and in the alternative for refund of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant contended that she never entered into an agreement for sale with the first respondent and received any amount from him. She also denied that possession of the property was handed over to the first respondent. According to her, her son Prakasan borrowed from the first respondent Rs.25,000/- after obtaining from the appellant a signed blank stamp paper and signed blank papers as security. She prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial court found that there was no agreement for sale between the parties. But it ordered refund of Rs.3,00,000/which was allegedly received by the appellant from the first respondent. This is challenged.
