plain terms that it was executed only as a security for allowing the plaintiff to occupy the suit property without executing any mortgage. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a sale agreement, as it was executed only as a security for allowing the plaintiff to occupy the suit property without executing any mortgage deed. Admittedly, the suit property was allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to the defendant and a party cannot encumber or alienate the property in any manner. As no sale agreement could be executed or property would be registered based on the sale agreement, afraid of the action by the TNHB, an unregistered sale agreement was entered into between the parties and the plaintiff was also put in possession. It is also a finding by the first appellate Court that the amount of Rs.66,000/- was already paid, which has not been questioned by the plaintiff at any point of time in the pleading and the agreement was only in the nature of loan agreement and taking into account Exs.A-1 and B-2, it could be construed not as a sale agreement, but only as a loan transaction, and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
