16.The second count for which the first appellate court rejected the plaintiff's case is that the defendant would not have ventured to alienate the suit property, purchased by her for a higher price under Ex.A3 sale deed, for a lower price under Ex.A2 sale agreement. According to the first appellate court, the suit property's value had been fixed at Rs.1,16,000/in Ex.A3 sale deed and therefore opined that the defendant would not have come forward to alienate the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.65,000/-. As above pointed out, there is no material on the part of the defendant worth acceptance to hold that she had orally entered into the sale transaction with Subbrayan and Padmanaban for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- qua Ex.A3 sale transaction and on the other hand, Ex.A3 sale transaction recites that it had been entered into between the parties concerned only for Rs.65,000/-. Accordingly when the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for the same amount merely because the market value had been mentioned at a higher rate in Ex.A3 sale transaction, that factor alone would not be the basis for rejecting Ex.A2 sale agreement. When as per section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, inadequacy of consideration cannot be deemed to constitute the unfair advantage as contemplated under class (a) of the abovesaid section and when there is no material on the part of the defendant that the sale consideration covered under Ex.A3 had been entered into for Rs.1,16,000/- as determined by the first appellate court and on the other hand as per the terms contained in Ex.A3 sale transaction, the sale had been entered into between the parties only for a sum of Rs.65,000/-, in such view of the matter, particularly when the defendant, as above discussed, failed to establish her defence version with reference to the borrowal of the loan from Manimalar Investments and the obtainment of her signatures in blank promissory notes and blank papers etc., and when there is no material evidencing the value of the suit property on the date of the sale agreement, in all, it is found that the abovesaid reasonings adduced by the first appellate court, particularly in the absence of any evidence adduced by the parties concerned pointing to the same and in fact, when Ex.A3 sale transaction is found to be entered into only for the consideration recited therein and accordingly the plaintiff and the defendant had
