SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5696

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S. KARNAN
S.Bhaskar
Versus
A.R.Palanisamy (deceased) & Others
C.M.A.No.2600 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2009
Decided on : 19-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant: Mr.Mr.Sanjay Gandhi for M/s.Vijay Anand.
For respondents:Mr.R.Balakrishnan, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that physical possession and the terms of the sale agreement can influence the entitlement to interim injunction and specific performance.

Headnote:

Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - [Transfer of Property Act, S.53-A; Specific Relief Act, Ss.15, 19, 24, 41; C.P.C., O.39, R.1] - The court discussed the sale agreement dated 20.01.2008, the possession of the suit property, and the entitlement of the appellant to interim injunction. The court found that the appellant was in physical possession and entitled to interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit properties. The court set aside the order and decreetal order dated 10.08.2009 and directed the case to be disposed within six months.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants, alleging that they had agreed to sell certain properties to him. The defendants denied giving possession and alleged that the suit property was not the subject matter of the agreement. The court found that the appellant was in physical possession and entitled to interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit properties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant was in physical possession and entitled to interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit properties. The court set aside the order and decreetal order dated 10.08.2009 and directed the case to be disposed within six months.

Issues: The issues included the possession of the suit property, entitlement to interim injunction, and the validity of the sale agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's physical possession of the suit property and the terms of the sale agreement, which entitled the appellant to interim injunction.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order and decreetal order dated 10.08.2009 and allowed the appeal. The court directed the Principal District Judge to dispose of the case within six months.

Judgment

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 10.08.2009, passed by Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in I.A.No.327/2008 in O.S.No.102/2008.

2.Aggrieved by this Dismissal Order, the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above appeal for setting aside the dismissal Order.

3.The short facts of case are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.102 of 2008 along with Interlocutory Application No.327 of 2008, against the 1st to 6th defendants. The plaintiff stated that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit properties in Villupuram Taluk, in Orathur Village, which are described under bearing Survey Numbers:

1.Dry Survey No.293/7 - 0.60 Acres 2.Dry Survey No.294/3 - 0.29 Acres 3.Dry Survey No.294/8 - 1.08 Acres 4.Dry Survey No.295/1B - 1.05 Acres 5.Dry Survey No.295/2 - 0.92 Acres 6.Dry Survey No.295/3 - 0.06 Acres 7.Dry Survey No.294/5 - 1.54 Acres 8.Dry Survey No.296/1B1 - 0.97 Acres 9.Dry Survey No.296/1A - 1.03 Acres 10.Dry Survey No.296/1B3 - 1.92 Acres 11.Dry Survey No.296/1B2 - 1.92 Acres 12.Dry Survey No.294/1 - 0.80 Acres 13.Dry Survey No.294/4 - 0.65 Acres 14.Dry Survey No.294/2 - 0.35 Acres 15.Dry Survey No.294/7 - 0.56 Acres 16.Dry Survey No.294/9 - 0.20 Acres 17.Dry Survey No.294/10 - 0.52 Acres 18.Dry Survey No.294/11 - 1.16 Acres 19.Dry Survey No.294/12 - 0.52 Acres 20.Dry Survey No.294/13 - 1.98 Acres 21.Dry Survey No.294/14 - 0.82 Acres 22.Dry Survey No.294/6 - 1.72 Acres 23.Dry Survey No.294/15 - 0.88 Acres 24.Dry Survey No.306/2 - 1.29 Acres 25.Dry Survey No.306/3 - 1.10 Acres 26.Dry Survey No.306/4 - 0.38 Acres 24.31 Acres

4.The defendants had agreed to sell the above mentioned properties for a sum of Rs.1,45,86,000/-. Out of the sale consideration, the plaintiff had paid Rs.10,00,000/-as advance/sale consideration for the above said properties. The agreement period was for three months with effect from 20.01.2008. Further, the 1st to 5th defendants had agreed to give consent deed after obtaining the same from other co-owners. It was agreed that if the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, the plaintiff could approach the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court and get the sale deed through Court. As per agreement, the sale deed could not be executed. Hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice through his counsel on 16.04.2008 ie. prior to the expiry of the said sale agreement, wherein the plaintiff had asked the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,35,86,000/- and execute the sale deed. After receipt of the legal notice, the defendants sent a reply on 18.04.2008. In this reply letter, the defendants had expressed their willingness to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration and it had also been pointed out that it was the plaintiff, who had been the cause for the delay in execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff had issued a rejoinder to this letter stating that he had approached the defendants, several times, for execution of sale deed and that the delay has not been caused by him and that he was willing to pay the balance sale consideration. Thereafter, as there was no response from the defendants, the plaintiff sent another legal notice dated 24.04.2008, wherein the plaintiff had once again expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration. The defendants sent a legal notice on 29.04.2008 to the plaintiff and admitted the sale agreement dated 20.01.2008, but blamed the plaintiff that he had not come forward to execute the sale deed.

5.Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Principal District Court, Villupuram and filed Original Suit O.S.No.102 of 2008 and prayed for

(a)directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in the name of persons nominated by him on receipt of balance amount of Rs.1,35,86,000/-in sale consideration at his co










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top