Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4441
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Absal Saheb & Others
Versus
N. Gajendran & Others
Second Appeal No.1171 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 07-10-2010
For the Appellants:A. Rajendrakumar, Advocate.
The court's decision was influenced by the application of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides for discretionary relief of specific performance based on the fairness, equity, and circumstances of the contract and the parties' conduct.
Headnote:
specific performance - agreement for sale - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement for sale, contending that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The defendants alleged lack of consensus ad idem, coercion, and force in executing the agreement, and antedated reconveyance agreement as defenses.
Finding of the Court:
The trial and appellate courts found that the agreement for sale was executed without undue influence, rejected the defendants' contentions, and granted specific performance to the plaintiff. The second appellate court upheld the decision, dismissing the second appeal.
Issues: Consensus ad idem, coercion, force, antedated reconveyance agreement, readiness and willingness to perform the contract, alternative relief
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence, considered the defendants' defenses, and applied Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides for discretionary relief of specific performance. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance as the defendants failed to establish their defenses.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the grant of specific performance to the plaintiff.
1. The defendants who suffered a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale both before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, are the appellants herein. Originally the first and second defendants alone were parties to the suit laid by the plaintiff. As both of them passed away, the other defendants/appellants herein have come on record, as legal representatives of the original defendants 1 and 2.
2. The plaintiff laid the suit contending that the first and second defendants having agreed to sell the suit properties for a sum of Rs.91,000/-, executed the agreement for sale on 14.9.1982, receiving a sale advance of Rs.10,100/-. The plaintiff has contended that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Inspite of the notice served on the defendants 1 and 2, they had not expressed their willingness to perform their part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale.
3. The defendants 1 and 2 have contended in the written statement that they have not executed the agreement for sale with a free mind. The first defendant was old and sick at the time of execution of the agreement for sale. Exploiting the pitiable situation, the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants 1 and 2. It is alleged that the agreement of sale lacks consensus of mind. It is also contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In fact, he was ready to get back the advance amount within a week from the date of the alleged agreement. It is further contended that the price offered for the suit properties was unconscionable. With the aforesaid contentions, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial Court having thoroughly adverted to the materials on record has returned a finding that the agreement for sale-Ex.A1 was really executed by the defendants 1 and 2 without any undue influence. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that there was no consensus ad idem in executing the agreement for sale-Ex-A1. The alleged reconveyance agreement-Ex.B1 dated 21.11.1973 was also rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court having come to the conclusion that it was only the defendants 1 and 2 who had not expressed their willingness to execute the sale deed, despite the fact that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to take a sale deed, decreed the suit and granted a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale. The first appellate Court on a thorough perusal of the materials on record chose to confirm the judgment of the trial Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that Ex.A1 was not executed in a fair manner. Coercion and force were applied to the second defendant, who is none other than the wife of the first defendant, to put her signature in Ex.A1. The plaintiff having taken advantage of the signature of the first defendant has got the agreement executed in an unfair way. It is also contended that the second defendant who is a pardhanashin woman had no occasion to read the terms of the agreement and as a result of which, she was not aware of the terms of the agreement. It is also submitted that the aforesaid circumstances would go to show that there was no consensus ad idem to execute the agreement-Ex.A1 by defendants 1 and 2. He would also contend that the second defendant would not have ventured to enter into an agreement for sale when she had already executed a reconveynace agreement in favour of one K.M.Abdul Magith, way back on 21.11.1973. The last submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that after all the plaintiff has come forward with a prayer for alternative relief with a view to get back the advance paid by him. Therefore, he would submit that discretionary relief of specific performance of agreement for sale may not be gran
