Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 423
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR
A. Natarajan
Versus
Ponniammal alias Ponnammal & Another
A.S. No.386 of 1991
Decided On : 03-02-2007
Headnote:
agreement of sale - breach of contract - Specific Relief Act, Section 13(1)(b), Section 14(1)(a) - The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit claim as the defendant had no alienable right at the time of the agreement, and the agreement provided for adequate compensation in case of breach. The court also held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The plaintiff's claim for return of the advance amount with interest was upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant for a property. The defendant failed to perform their part of the contract, leading to the plaintiff filing a suit for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit claim and dismissed the suit. However, the defendant was directed to return the advance amount with interest to the plaintiff.
Issues: The court considered issues related to the enforceability of the agreement, entitlement of the plaintiff for relief, limitation, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract, and the return of the advance amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit claim as the defendant had no alienable right at the time of the agreement and the agreement provided for adequate compensation in case of breach. The court also found the suit to be barred by limitation. However, the plaintiff's claim for return of the advance amount with interest was upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the defendant was directed to pay the amount received from the plaintiff towards the agreement of sale with interest at 12% p.a from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of realization.
This Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.1990 in O.S.No.5332 of 1987 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai, in and by which the learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the evidence in depth found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim and accordingly dismissed the suit.
2) For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.
3) The plaintiff states as follows:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 28. 1981 for the purchase of the premises bearing Door No.35-B, Ashok Nagar Scheme, Madras of an extent of 1500 sq.ft for a total consideration of Rs.30,000/-.
4) The defendant was an Allottee from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and therefore, undertook to get clearance from the Housing Board for effecting sale of the property to the plaintiff after paying the entire instalments to the Housing Board.
5) On the date of the said agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.4,000/- to the defendant by way of advance, undertaking to pay Rs.6,000/-on or before 10.09.1981 and the balance amount to be paid at the time of registration within 90 days from the date of the agreement on the assumption and understanding that the defendant will get the clearance from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board before the stipulated time.
6) Though the plaintiff has performed his part of contract as per the agreement after paying the amounts referred therein, the defendant failed and neglected to perform his part of contract. Hence, the suit.
7) The defendants state as follows:
The execution of the sale agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant was forbidden by law. The rules of Tamil Nadu Housing Board did not permit the same. The plaintiff was also aware of the same. Since, the agreement is unlawful, the agreement cannot be enforced in the Court of law. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed in limine.
8) The plaintiff was examined as PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked on the side of the plaintiff to prove his claim. The husband of the defendant was examined as DW.1. The Lower Court after analysing the evidence in depth found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim and accordingly dismissed the suit.
9) Heard Mr. V.Narayanaswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.
G.S.Selvatharasu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, and Mr. A.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
10) Upon hearing the rival contentions, the points for consideration are:-
1) Whether the suit agreement is executable under law?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for in terms of the agreement?
3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4)Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay consideration to perform his part of contract at any point of time?
5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the return of the advance amount?
6)Whether the findings of the Lower Court in dismissing the suit is in order?
11) Point Nos.1 & 2:
It is true that there is an agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 28. 1981 for a total consideration of Rs.30,000/-. It is also true that the defendant received a sum of Rs.4,000/-on the date of the agreement. There is no dispute regarding this aspect. Subsequently, the defendant has also paid a sum of Rs.1,400/- to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 28. 1981 after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are proof to this effect. There is no dispute regarding this aspect.
12) The recitals of Ex.A1 are important to find out whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief. The conditions 3 and 4 of the agreement of sale Ex.A1 reads as follows:-
"3. The sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) will be paid the Party of the Second Part to the Party of the First Part on or before 9. 1981 and the balance amount will be paid at the time of registration of the plot to the Party of the First Part or its nominee within 90 days from the da
