JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. R. S. A. No. 1898 of 2010 and R. S. A. No. 699 of 2011 – both titled Smt. Mohini vs. Ram Chander because both these appeals have arisen out of a single suit. 2. Ram Chander – respondent/plaintiff filed suit against Smt. Mohini – defendant/appellant for possession of suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.06.1996 alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.65,000/- and received Rs.36,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement and receipt dated 17.06.1996. Sale deed was to be registered up to 20.11.1996. Accordingly, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar with requisite amount on 20.11.1996 to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement, although the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 3. The defendant, in her written statement, broadly denied the plaint averments and pleaded that she had borrowed Rs.14,500/- from the plaintiff on 19.01.1995 on interest @ 2% per month against deposit of title deed of the suit property with the plaintiff as security. The plaintiff obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on some papers. The defendant has been regularly paying monthly interest to the plaintiff. She also paid principal amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on 22.12.1995 and the balance principal amount of Rs.4,500/- on 27.10.1996. The plaintiff had obtained defendant’s thumb impressions on blank papers on 22.12.1995, 17.06.1996 and 27.10.1996 by representing that the same were receipts of the amount paid by the defendant out of the loan amount. Original documents were kept by the plaintiff, whereas photostat copies were handed over to the defendant. On receiving notice from the plaintiff, defendant got the photostat copies examined and then learnt that the plaintiff had prepared three agreements i.e. agreement dated 19.01.1995 and impugned agreement dated 17.06.1996 in favour of the plaintiff himself and agreement dated 22.12.1995 in favour of one Ram Kishan – an alleged witness of first agreement dated 19.01.1995. The defendant never received the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid agreements. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. The defendant never received the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid agreements. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2007, instead of granting relief of specific performance of the impugned agreement, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs.36,000/- with interest and also awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The trial court held that the impugned agreement was executed by the defendant only as surety bond for repayment of the loan amount. 5. Both parties filed separate first appeals against judgment and decree of the trial court. Learned Additional District Judge, Yamnuna Nagar, vide judgment and decrees dated 13.02.2010, dismissed the defendant’s appeal and allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and decreed the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of the agreement. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed these two second appeals because there were two first appeals. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. All the three agreements dated 19.01.1995, 22.12.1995 and 17.06.1996 have been proved by the defendant. All these three agreements are regarding the same property. First and third agreements are in favour of the plaintiff himself, whereas second agreement is in favour of Ram Kishan, who is witness of the first agreement. From the sequence of execution of three agreements in succession as aforesaid, it becomes manifest that the defendant had only raised loan from the plaintiff and in lieu thereof, the aforesaid agreements were executed as security. Vide first agreement, the earnest money was of Rs.24,000/-. Vide second agreement, the earnest money was of Rs.30,000/- and vide third agreement, the earnest money was of Rs.36,000/-. It would also depict that earnest money was apparently mentioned in successive agreements by adding interest amount on the original earnest money. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion, as rightly arrived at by the trial court, that the impugned agreement and other agreements were obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant as security for the loan amount. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was rightly decreed by the trial court for recovery of money including damages. Finding of the lower appellate court to the contrary granting relief of specific performance of the impugned agreement to the plaintiff is thus patently perverse and illegal giving rise to substantial question of law to this effect. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was rightly decreed by the trial court for recovery of money including damages. Finding of the lower appellate court to the contrary granting relief of specific performance of the impugned agreement to the plaintiff is thus patently perverse and illegal giving rise to substantial question of law to this effect. The said substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant, for the reasons recorded herein before. The sequence of successive agreements regarding the same property and the amount of earnest money mentioned in the agreements leaves no room for doubt that the agreements were got executed as security for the loan amount. Consequently, specific performance of the impugned agreement cannot be ordered. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, both the instant second appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and decrees of the lower appellate court are set aside and judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. -----------------