Judgment :- This is a Second Appeal filed by K. Sheik Adham Sahib in O.S.No.1 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Palani, against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.1979 in A.S.No.125 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dismissing the appeal with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. During the pendency of this Second Appeal, the plaintiff/appellate herein died, and so his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 7 by virtue of the order of this Court dated 27.8.1981 in C.M.P.No.591 of 1981. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance directing the defendant/respondent herein to execute a sale deed for Rs.5,000 in favour of the plaintiff and in default by the defendant, to have the same done through Court and to direct the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties and for costs of suit. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit properties which are plots Nos.3 and 4 measuring about 2150 sq.ft. and 2194 sq.ft. respectively out of one acre 4245 sq.ft. situated in T.S.No.569 Block No.5 Ward No.3 in Palani Town are within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. These suit properties and some other properties were purchased by the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 10.4.1968. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement (unregistered) dated 1.8.1977 in respect of the suit properties. As per the sale agreement, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.4,000 on the date of sale agreement and within six months the plaintiff should pay the balance of Rs.1,000 and get the deed executed in his favour and in case the defendant failed to execute the sale within six months, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance of Rs.1,000 into court and get the sale deed executed through Court. Along with the same agreement the defendant also produced the original sale deeds to the plaintiff. Under the sale agreement T.S.No.569 has been mistakenly written as T.S.No.564 and the same has to be rectified. As per the sale agreement the plaintiff offered the balance of Rs.1,000 within six months and demanded for execution of the sale by the defendant, but the defendant somehow or other dodged to perform his part of contract. Under the sale agreement T.S.No.569 has been mistakenly written as T.S.No.564 and the same has to be rectified. As per the sale agreement the plaintiff offered the balance of Rs.1,000 within six months and demanded for execution of the sale by the defendant, but the defendant somehow or other dodged to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff is always willing and ready to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice dated 8.11.1977, for which the defendant issued a reply notice dated 15.11.1977 ating that the sum of Rs.4,000 was not paid as advance but only as a loan and no such sale agreement was executed. In fact the sale agreement was written by one Arumugam Pillai and attested by two witnesses - Subramania Pillai and Rajagopal. Hence the plaintiff after depositing the said balance of Rs.1,000 in Court has filed this suit. Hence the suit was instituted. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he had raised the following contentions: The suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Though the plaintiff has prayed for possession, no court-fees has been paid for the same. Further, the trial Court has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to try the suit. There is no such alleged agreement dated 1.8.1977 and the said document is not at all an agreement in the eye of law and hence there is no enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of the suit properties. The defendant never intended or never executed any such sale agreement. Since the defendant was in a pressure for money, he approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to advance Rs.4,000 on condition that the defendant should pay the said sum within six months with interest and if the defendant failed to repay the amount within six months, he should sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for Rs.5,000. The defendant in order to get money agreed to the unconscionable terms with the hope that he would repay the loan within six months. Hence the defendant by believing the scribe Arumugham who is none other than the close associate of the plaintiff, asked him to reduce the same into writing and the defendant simply signed the document. The defendant never intended to write any sale agreement. There is no consensus ‘Idem’ in the agreement and there is no mutality between the parties. Hence the defendant by believing the scribe Arumugham who is none other than the close associate of the plaintiff, asked him to reduce the same into writing and the defendant simply signed the document. The defendant never intended to write any sale agreement. There is no consensus ‘Idem’ in the agreement and there is no mutality between the parties. There are no two parties in the sale agreement as contemplated under law since the plaintiff never signed the document and so there cannot be any agreement much less any sale agreement. Even assuming for a moment that the said document is an agreement, there is no free consent on the part of the defendant and hence there is no valid contract enforceable in law. The suit property is more valuable than that of the value mentioned by the plaintiff. The adjacent plot of the suit property measuring about 1090 sq.ft. on the west had been sold by one Muthusamy for Rs.2,000 three months prior to the alleged sale agreement. The suit properties would fetch easily more than Rs.8,000. The plaintiff who is a seasonal litigant who is advancing monies for usurious and heavy interest and thereby enriched himself at the cost of others with scheming mind has filed this suit by terming the document dated 1.8.1977 as the sale agreement. The word ‘sale’ is not at all mentioned in the alleged sale agreement and there is no clause in the document that the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed. The longer period of six months has been given only to repay the loan and the amount of Rs.4,000 was not paid as part of the sale consideration but only as a loan. The original document of title was given to the plaintiff as a security for the loan amount. The plaintiff cannot ask for a sale of T.S.No.569 without a prayer for rectification of the document when admittedly in the alleged sale agreement the property covered is only T.S.No. 564. Even the description of the properties in the plaint is not admitted. The plaintiff never offered Rs.1,000 at any time and never demanded for the sale of the suit properties. Even the description of the properties in the plaint is not admitted. The plaintiff never offered Rs.1,000 at any time and never demanded for the sale of the suit properties. The defendant was making arrangements to sell away the property to discharge the loan of Rs.4,000 due to the plaintiff but the intending purchasers wanted the original document and so in or about last week of October, 1977 the defendant asked for the original document from the plaintiff for which the plaintiff was evading and finally issued notice. Notice was issued only to prevent others from purchasing the defendant’s property. Now the defendant is having funds and prepared to pay the amount. The defendant also paid interest Rs.360 for the period. Since the amount mentioned in the alleged agreement is only a loan and not sale amount, the defendant is not liable and bound to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff for damages or mesne profits is not proper. The plaintiff would have also not paid the court fee for damages and no relief was asked for to that effect. Hence in all events the suit may be dismissed with costs. 5. Upon the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the trial court: 1. Whether the document dated 1.8.1977 is an agreement to sell immovable property? 2. Whether there is any enforceable contract between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of plaint schedule properties? 3. Whether there is mutuality in the alleged agreement dated 1.8.1977? 4. Whether the plaintiff mis entitled to mesneprofits? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? 6. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit? 7. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" The plaintiff - Sheik Adham Sahib examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 Arumugam Pillai and P.W.3 Rajagopal were also examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Exhibits A-1 registered sale deed dated 10.4.1968 for Rs.2,000 executed by Angian Chettiar and others in favour of Maruthamuthu Pillai, A-2 advance agreement dated 1.8.1977 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.4,000, A-3 true copy of the plaintiff’s lawyer notice dated 8.11.1977 issued to the defendant and A-4 reply notice dated 15.11.1977 issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff’s counsel were filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant - Maruthamuthu examined himself as D.W.1. The defendant - Maruthamuthu examined himself as D.W.1. D.W.2 Subra-manla Pillai and D.W.3 Muthuswamy were also examined on behalf of the defendant; but no document was filed on behalf of the defendant. Under issues Nos.1 to 3, the trial court held that the plaintiff having failed to sign Ex.A-2 cannot claim that Ex.A-2 is the sale agreement and consequently it is not fulfilling the requirements of concluded contract in section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and section 2 of the Contract Act and consequently Ex.A-2 will not amount to agreement for sale. The plaintiff filed the suit on 19.12.1977 within six months though the period of six months expires on 31.1.1978. Hence, even according to the case of the plaintiff, he has filed this suit for specific performance even before the expiry of the alleged stipulated period of six months as mentioned in Ex.A-2 as claimed by the plaintiff and hence the suit is premature.Ex.A-2 does not show the concluded contract or agreement between the parties due to the reason that the plaintiff has not signed the unregistered document - Ex.A-2 and hence it may not be enforced and also it is not open to the court to make out a new contract for the parties. Even according to Ex.A-2, the suit property is situated in T.S.No.564, whereas it is actually situated in T.S.No.569 and hence there cannot be any relief for specific performance in view of Ex.A-2 in this respect also†.- Hence the trial Court held that the document dated 1.8.1977 is not an agreement to sell, that there is no enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit properties, and that there is no mutuality in the alleged agreement dated 1.8.1977. So, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Under issue No.5 the trial Court held that it is not giving any direction with respect to compensation amount. The trial Court further held that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. In the result, the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 125 of 1978 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for determination in the appeal: 1. "Whether Ex.A-2 is an agreement for sale of the suit properties? 2. In the result, the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 125 of 1978 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for determination in the appeal: 1. "Whether Ex.A-2 is an agreement for sale of the suit properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale?" Under points Nos. 1 and 2, the lower appellate court held that Ex.A-2 did not constitute an agreement for sale of the suit properties and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed and the appeal was dismissed with costs by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has come forward with this Second Appeal. 6. At the time of admission, the following question of law was framed for determination by this Court in this Second Appeal: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case in which the appellant has failed in both the Courts below to get a decree for specific performance, he should be given a decree for a sum of Rs.4,000 paid to the respondent without either a prayer for it in the plaint or at least a request for the same In the course of the arguments in the trial Court or the first appellate Court." In the plaint the following reliefs were sought for by the plaintiff/appellant herein: Though in paragraph (e) of the prayer portion of the plaint, it is sought by the plaintiff/appellant herein what such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper, may be granted to him, yet, in his evidence as P.W.I he has not specifically stated that in case the reliefs sought for in the plaint are not granted by the Court in his favour, at least a direction to the defendant/respondent herein for the return of the advance amount of Rs.4,000 paid by him to the defendant/-respondent herein may be given. Further, the plaintiff as P.W.I has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that the amount of Rs.4,000 was given as loan only to the defendant/respondent herein. Further, the plaintiff as P.W.I has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that the amount of Rs.4,000 was given as loan only to the defendant/respondent herein. Under the circumstances, it is clear that no decree can be granted for a sum of Rs.4,000 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 7. The suit has been instituted on the strength of the agreement Ex.A-2, dated 1.8.1977 which contains the signature of defendant alone. It is the case of the plaintiff as P.W.1 that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit properties to him for Rs.5,000 and that he had paid an advance of Rs.4,000 on 1.8.1977. It is seen* from the recitals in Ex.A-2 that it is termed as an advance agreement and not as an agreement for sale of the suit properties. There is nothing in Ex.A-2 to indicate that the defendant had expressly agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff. It is the evidence of the defendant as D.W.I that he had approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.4,000 and that the plaintiff had advanced Rs.4,000 on his undertaking to repay the amount within a period of six months with interest at 36 per cent per annum. In case the defendant failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period, the plaintiff was at liberty to pay Rs. 1,000 more and get sale deed executed in his favour. The defendant has further stated that he had handed over Ex.A-1 only as a security for the amount borrowed by him. Though the plaintiff had been mentioned as a party in the body of the agreement Ex.A-2, he had not signed in Ex.A-2. The plaintiff had admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.A-2 amounted to an unilateral contract for the sale of the suit properties executed by the defendant alone, and that it was not executed by the plaintiff and the defendant. It is clear from a reading of Ex.A-2 that it is a bilateral agreement, but there is nothing in Fx.A-2 to show that the plaintiff had signified his consent. Though it is stated in Ex.A-2 that both the parties have signed in Ex.A-2 the agreement, it did not contain the signature of the plaintiff. 8. A contract to be specifically enforced by the Court must, as a" general rule, be mutual. That is, it must be capable of being enforced by either of the parties against the other. Though it is stated in Ex.A-2 that both the parties have signed in Ex.A-2 the agreement, it did not contain the signature of the plaintiff. 8. A contract to be specifically enforced by the Court must, as a" general rule, be mutual. That is, it must be capable of being enforced by either of the parties against the other. The Specific Relief Act does not anywhere repudiate the doctrine of mutuality. Leake says in his book ‘On Contracts’ as follows: "An agreement as the source of a legal contract imports that one party shall be bound to some performance, which the other shall have a legal right to enforce." In Halsbury’s Laws of England, it is stated: "A contract is an agreement made between two or more persons which is intended to be enforceable at law and is constituted by the acceptance by one party of an offer made to him by the other party to do or abstain from doing some act." The Indian Contract Act, section 2 clause (h) defines a contract as: "An agreement enforceable by law." The term agreement is defined in section 2 clause (e) as follows: "Every promise or every set of promises forming the considerations for each other is an agreement." A promise is defined in section 2, Clause (b) as follows: "When the person to whom a proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal when accepted becomes a promise." A proposal is defined in section 2, clause (a) as follows: "When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal." The doctrine of ‘mutuality’ means that the contract should be mutually enforceable by each party against the other and not that right for right there must be a corresponding clause. A contract may contain a series of clauses and covenants which form the total bargain each of which is a consideration for the other. Mutuality does not mean equality and exact arithmetical correspondence. It means that each party must have the freedom to enforce rights under the contract against the other Section 20(4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act No.47 of 1963) reads as follows: "20(4). Mutuality does not mean equality and exact arithmetical correspondence. It means that each party must have the freedom to enforce rights under the contract against the other Section 20(4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act No.47 of 1963) reads as follows: "20(4). The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party." 9. The definite case of the defendant/respondent herein was that he had borrowed Rs.4,000 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-2. P.W.2 Arumugam Pillai is the scribe of Ex.A-2, and P.W.3 Rajagopal and D.W.2 Subramaniam Pillai have attested the same. P.W.2 is known to the plaintiff from his infancy and he is highly interested in him. P.W.3 is running a shop in the building belonging to the plaintiff and he had gone to the scene only at the time of the defendant signing the document Ex.A-2. He did not know anything about the agreement arrived at by the parties or the contents of Ex.A-2. D.W.2 was definite that a sum of Rs.4,000 was advanced by the plaintiff only as a loan which was to be repaid with interest by the defendant. Further the plaintiff had paid Rs.4,000 out of the sale consideration of Rs.5,000 on the date of Ex.A-2 itself. The defendant had handed over the sale deed Ex.A-1 to the plaintiff; but there is no mention in Ex.A-2 with regard to the delivery of Ex.A- 1. The defendant has stated that he had handed over Ex.A-1 only as a security for the repayment of the loan, and the non-mention of handing over of Ex.A-1 in Ex.A-2 supports the case of the defendant. The defendant had taken a definite stand in his reply notice Ex.A-4 that he had executed Ex.A-2 in respect of a loan transaction and that he had not agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff. So, the suit cannot be said to be premature. 10. In the instant case before us, there is sufficient evidence to show that Ex.A-2 evidenced only a loan transaction and that the intention of the parties was not to enter into an agreement to sell the suit properties. One of the two attestors has sworn before the trial Court that Ex.A-2 was executed by the defendant in connection with the loan transaction. One of the two attestors has sworn before the trial Court that Ex.A-2 was executed by the defendant in connection with the loan transaction. The other attestor does not know anything about the contents of the document or the agreement arrived at by the parties. The plaintiff had also not signed in Ex.A-2. In the above circumstances, both the courts below are correct in holding that Ex.A-2 did not constitute an agreement for sale of the suit properties, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 11. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.