JUDGMENT: Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for specific performance to execute a gift deed as per the agreement dated 16.2.1977 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Coimbatore and the present appeal is against this judgment.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff claimed that he was a close and intimate friend and the confidential adviser of the first defendant’s father late Palanisamy Gounder, who owned large extent of properties. The first defendant’s was living with her father Palanisamy Gounder. According to the plaintiff, in view of his close association with the first defendant’s father and at her request, he influenced the mind of the first defendant’s father and got a will dated 27.11.1967 executed by him, bequeathing almost all his properties in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff helped the first defendant in the suit filed by one P.K. Palanisamy for specific performance. According to him, he also helped her when a dispute about the will of her father was raised. In recognition of the plaintiff’s assistance and support, the first defendant promised to convey, by means of gift, an extent of three acres of land and executed a letter of agreement dated 16.2.1977. However, she did not execute the gift deed inspite of several repeated demands, and on the contrary, she alienated certain portions of the land promised to be conveyed to him, both prior to and subsequent to the suit and hence, the above suit was filed. The first defendant opposed the relief and denied any such assistance pleaded by the plaintiff in her favour. She denied of having executed any agreement as alleged. She also pleaded that the plaintiff would have utilised blank papers obtained from her when certain litigations were pending, in the guise of preparing affidavits. On these pleadings, nine issues were framed and after a detailed examination of the matter, the learned Judge found that the agreement dated 16.2.1977 in favour of the plaintiff is true. However, the learned Judge held that the agreement is opposed to public policy inasmuch as the gift deed was agreed to be given for assisting the first defendant to obtain a will in her favour and to defend the case unlawfully. The learned Judge also found that the plaintiff cannot seek for specific performance of such an agreement. It was also found that the alienations made in favour of defendants 2 to 12 were valid and that they were bonafide purchasers of the properties. The appeal is against this judgment.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial Court having found that the agreement is true and genuine, ought to have decreed the suit. According to him, in the absence of any pleading that the agreement is opposed to public policy, the Court below erroneously held so, that this amounts to a special pleading on behalf of the defendant and that the trial Court failed to consider the valuable services rendered by the plaintiff and in lieu of the same, as a consideration, the first defendant agreed to convey the property. According to him, the conclusion of the learned Judge that the assistance of the plaintiff is motivated and therefore it is hit by Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act on the vice of inducement is erroneous. The learned Judge, having found that the appellant had helped the first defendant to lay out the land belonging to her, the expression of the word ‘gift’ used in Ex.A-20 is merely a nomenclature for a transaction that has to be taken and therefore, it will not make the agreement is one without consideration.

4. The respondents, besides supporting the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge, contended that the suit prayer as such is not maintainable and that the judgment and the finding does not require any interference except reiteration of the same.

5. Before I go into the factual aspect of the matter and the findings of the Court below, I feel that the appeal can be disposed of on the legal question itself. The prayer in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document