IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement of Sale – Court cannot grant relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. The suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of an immovable property, filed by the respondent herein, was decreed by the Trial Court but the said decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court. However, the High Court reversed the Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and restored the decree for specific performance granted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the original defendant are on appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.360 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Salem, for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 19.06.1993, contending inter alia :

that the appellants agreed to sell the suit property which is a land of the extent of about 76 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,44,000;

that an advance of Rs.25,000 was paid at the time of execution of the Agreement;

that the defendant received further amounts of Rs.50,000/- on 19.11.1995, Rs.43,000/- on 11.05.1998, Rs.10,000/- on 27.01.2001 and Rs.16,400/- on 10.07.2005;

that appropriate endorsements were made on the reverse of the first, second and third pages of the agreement;

that the entire sale consideration thus stood paid;

that it was provided in the Agreement that the defendant should simultaneously enter into an agreement with his brother’s wife for the purchase of a portion of her land, to be used as pathway for access to reach the suit property;

that the time for performance of the obligations under the Agreement was fixed as 11 months from the date of the defendant entering into an agreement with his brother’s wife for the purchase of the land for the pathway;

that however when the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.03.2007, the defendant sent a reply denying everything; and

that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying everything, including the execution of the Agreement. Therefore, the Trial Court framed the following issues;

“(i) Is the Agreement of Sale dated 19-8-93 real and true?

(ii) Is the suit barred by limitation?

(iii) Is the plaintiff eligible for the relief of specific performance?

(iv) Any other relief?”

6. After trial, the Trial Court passed a Judgment and decree dated 14.02.2012, holding that the Agreement dated 19.06.1993 was true and valid; that the suit was not barred by limitation; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance.

7. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion,

that the endorsements made in the Agreement of sale on 12.11.1995, 11.05.1998, 27.01.2001 and 10.07.2005 marked as Exhibit A-2 to A-5, were not proved;

that the plaintiff could not prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations;

that the suit was barred by limitation; and

that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance.

8. The only substantial question of law framed by the High Court at the time of admission of the second appeal was as follows:

“In the light of the finding of the trial Court that Ex. A1 – sale agreement is true, whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that the endorsements made on Ex.A.1 under Exs.A.2 to A.5 have not been proved though, according to the plaintiff, it has been proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3?”

9. The High Court recorded its opinion on the above substantial question of law as follows :

“From over all consideration of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that the first respondent only executed Exs.A.1 to A.5 and the First Appellate Judge on erroneous consideration of pleadings and evidence of P.Ws.2 to 3 held that the appellant failed to prove the endorsements in Exs.A.2 to A.5 after holding that Ex.A.1 was executed by the first respondent and rel