The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents the defendants. The plaint schedule immovable property belongs to the former. On 12.6.2010 she and the second respondent entered into an agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property for Rs.16,00,000/- and she received from the latter Rs.4,85,000/- towards the sale consideration, the appellant undertook to execute sale deed within three months on payment of the balance sale consideration. The amount paid in advance was used by the appellant to pay off the debt to a Co-operative Bank from where she had taken a loan mortgaging the plaint schedule property. On payment of the debt the title deed and other documents of the appellant were released to the second respondent. Under one pretext or another the appellant did not execute the sale deed. On 19.8.2010 the second respondent issued a notice to the appellant demanding her to perform her part of the contract. But she sent a reply notice raising the false contentions that she had not entered into an agreement with him for the sale of the plaint schedule property. The second respondent has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On these allegations he prayed for a decree for specific performance. In her written statement the appellant denied that she had entered into an agreement with the second respondent for sale of the plaint schedule property. She contended that she had entered into an agreement for sale with Saji, son-in-law of the first respondent for Rs.21,00,000/- and he remitted in the Co-operative Bank Rs.4,85,000/- to
