Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 496
AIR 2009 Mad 159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
M. Raja Appar and Ors.
Vs.
M. Gnanasambandam (deceased by L.R's.)
A.N. 4386 of 2007
Decided On: 10.02.2009
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: T.V. Ramanujam, Sr. Counsel for C. Rajan, V.K. Sathiamurthy, A.C. Suseel Kumar and P. Siddharthan, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: V.T. Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General for Rajnish Pathiyil, R. Palanisamy and J. Om Prakash, Advs.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Family Arrangement - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - [FAMILY ARRANGEMENT] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 12(1), Section 14(1)(b) and (d), Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 29] - The court discussed the enforceability of a family arrangement in the context of a property dispute. It highlighted the essential requirements of an agreement enforceable by law and the special equities governing family arrangements. The court emphasized the need for consensus ad idem, absence of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, or coercion even in a family arrangement. It also examined the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to determine the enforceability of the Memorandum of Understanding in question. The court concluded that the Memorandum of Understanding was incapable of specific enforcement due to uncertainties and lack of material details, and therefore, rejected the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute arising from a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24-9-2005, regarding the joint development and sharing of a property. The plaintiffs sought specific enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding, while the defendant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds of enforceability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Memorandum of Understanding was incapable of specific enforcement due to uncertainties and lack of material details. It concluded that the suit for specific performance was barred by law and rejected the plaint.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the enforceability of the Memorandum of Understanding, the essential requirements of an agreement enforceable by law, and the applicability of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in the context of a family arrangement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for consensus ad idem, absence of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, or coercion even in a family arrangement. It highlighted the essential requirements of an agreement enforceable by law and the special equities governing family arrangements. The court also examined the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to determine the enforceability of the Memorandum of Understanding in question.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for rejection of the plaint and rejected the plaint in C.S. No. 701 of 2006. However, it clarified that this would not preclude the plaintiffs from filing the Memorandum of Understanding in the other suit C.S. No. 729 of 2006 and pleading estoppel against the defendant in the matter of the share to which he is entitled in the suit schedule property.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. This is an application taken out by the first defendant in the suit seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C.
2. I have heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.
3. One Mr. A. Muthiah. purchased a property bearing Door No. 10, old No. 16, Singaram Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17, by a sale deed dated 9-11-1933. He died intestate on 24-2-1961 leaving behind him surviving, (1) his wife Mrs. Parvatham Muthiah (2) 2 sons by name M. Gnanasambandam and M. Raja Appar and (3) 2 daughters by name Mrs. Uma Devi and Mrs. Madhuram Lakshman.
4. Mrs. Parvatham Muthiah executed a Will on 8-5-1997 registered as Document No. 63/1997, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, T. Nagar, bequeathing the said property in entirety, to her 2 sons M. Gnanasambandam and M. Raja Appar. Mrs. Parvatham subsequently died on 6-12-2003. One of the daughters namely Uma Devi also died on 4-4-2005 leaving behind her surviving, her husband and 2 daughters.
5. After the death of Mrs. Parvatham. a Memorandum of Understanding was allegedly entered into between her 2 sons, her daughter Madhuram Lakshman and the legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughter Uma Devi. Under the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 24-9-2005, the parties are said to have agreed to give the aforesaid property to a builder for joint development and take the constructed area that would fall to the share of the owners, in the ratio of 1/4 share each to the 2 sons and the surviving daughter of Mrs. Parvatham and 1/4 share to the legal heirs of Mrs. Uma Devi.
6. In pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties claim to have identified a buyer and formally settled the terms of the joint development agreement on principle. But one of the 2 sons by name M. Gnanasambandam did not agree to the joint development agreement. Therefore, the other son M. Raja Appar, the surviving daughter Madhuram Lakshman and the legal heirs of the deceased daughter Uma Devi, joined together and have come up with the present suit seeking specific enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24-9-2005. Thus, one son, one daughter and the legal heirs of the deceased daughter are the plaintiffs herein and the other son is the sole defendant herein.
7. The prayer of the plaintiffs in the suit is as follows:
directing the defendant to execute the sale deed to convey 1/4 undivided share of land in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominee or nominees in accordance with the memorandum of understanding dated 24-9-2005 failing which direct the officer of this Court to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs
8. While the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on 21-8-2006, the sole defendant herein instituted an independent suit in C.S. No. 729 of 2006 within a few days in September 2006, praying for partition and separate possession of his 3/10 share in the suit property. His claim for 3/10 share is on the basis that after the death of the father A. Muthiah and Muthiah's mother, the property devolved upon the mother Mrs. Parvatham and 2 sons and 2 daughters in the share of 1/5 each and that the mother executed a Will dated 8-5-1997 bequeathing her 1/5 share in the suit property upon the 2 sons namely, M. Gnanasambandam (the defendant in the present suit) and M. Raja Appar (the first plaintiff in the present suit) and that therefore he was entitled to his own 1/5 share together with the 1/10 share inherited under the Will of the mother, totalling to 3/10 share. In view of such a claim based on a Will, M. Gnanasambandam has also filed O.P. No. 85 of 2007 seeking Letters of Administration.
9. Thus, there are now 2 suits, one in C.S. No. 701 of 2006 filed by all the other sharers against M. Gnanasambandam seeking enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24-9-2005 and the other filed by M. Gnanasambandam against al
