High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Anusuya Devi
Versus
K. Panchanathan & Another
Appeal Suit No.1126 of 2007
Decided on : 04-03-2011
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Indian Evidence Act, Section 92 - Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 - Limitation Act, Section 5 - Specific Relief Act, Section 20 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant/defendant entered into a sale agreement with the respondents/plaintiffs for a property. The appellant/defendant claimed the agreement was for security for a loan, while the respondents/plaintiffs sought specific performance. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found the sale agreement valid and the respondents/plaintiffs ready and willing to perform, granting them specific performance. [ISSUES] Validity of the sale agreement, entitlement to specific performance, sustainability of the trial court's judgment and decree, relief for the appellant/defendant. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the sale agreement was valid and the respondents/plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance due to their continuous readiness and willingness to perform. The court also found the trial court's judgment sustainable. [FINAL DECISION] The First Appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree.
1. This Appeal Suit (First Appeal) arises out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 2002 dated 29.06.2007 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.5) Coimbatore Camp, Tiruppur.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:
(i) The suit property is absolute property of the defendant. On 13.10.1997, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs for the sale of the suit property and the sale price was fixed at Rs.9,75,000/-. The plaintiffs paid as an advance of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant by way of cash and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- to the defendant within 15 months from the date of sale agreement.
(ii) At the time of execution of the sale agreement, the defendant had handed over the original title deeds dated 24.06.1987 to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. But the defendant refused to receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs and postponed the execution of the sale deed. So the plaintiffs issued notice to the defendant on 09.09.1998 and the same was acknowledged by the defendant on 11.09.1998, but the defendant neither issued reply nor executed the sale deed.
(iii) The defendant made an attempt to alienate the suit property to the third parties. Hence the plaintiffs made an advertisement in the issue of Dina Malar dated 12.03.1999. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file a suit for specific performance and alternatively, to get refund of an advance amount with interest at 24% per annum and prayed for a decree.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-
(i) The suit property is purchased out of the sale consideration paid by the husband of the defendant in her name. The defendant never intended to sell the suit property either to the plaintiffs or to anybody. The defendant was compelled to help, some amount of loan borrowed from Santhilakshmi Finance by her uncle and family friend named Somasundaram. The said Somasundaram asked her to produce the title deeds of the suit property and some signatures of the defendant and also promised her to return the title deeds within one or two years. The defendant, without getting any permission from her husband and without his knowledge, handed over all the title deeds of the suit property to the said Somasundaram on 13.10.1997 and the said Somasundaram also received some signatures of the defendant on typed stamp papers at the office of Tiruppur Sub-Registration. At the time, the plaintiffs were not present. The value of the suit property is more than Rs.30,00,000/-. The defendant is never willing to sell the suit property.
(ii)There is so many legal contract among the defendant and the plaintiffs. To the knowledge of the defendant, her uncle Somasundaram has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiffs' Santhilakshmi Finance Company. For the said loan only, her uncle Somasundaram deposited the title deeds of the defendant for security and also gave some cheques to the plaintiffs' finance unit. Padmanaban, one of the partners of the plaintiffs' finance company lodged a complaint against Somasundaram and a criminal case in C.C.No.451 of 1999 was pending at Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur.
(iii) Since the defendant's husband is the owner of the suit property, he is also a necessary party to the suit. After receipt of the notice, the defendant approached her uncle. Her uncle promised to hand over the documents after settled the finance loan to the plaintiffs and showed some receipt for the proof of payment paid to the plaintiffs' finance towards interest and principal.
(iv) The defendant has no idea to alienate or encumber the suit property in future. No cause of action for the suit. Hence she prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and the written statement and arguments
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.