Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1224
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Kaarmukhilan(alias) Periyasaame
Versus
Mrs. Chandra Vadivu & Others
A.S.No.498 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on: 07-03-2012
For the Appellant:P. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, J.S. Mahalingam, R3 to R5, V. Raghupathi, M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi, Advocates.
The Court emphasized the importance of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the defendants' admission of signatures in the agreement to sell.
Headnote:
specific performance - agreement to sell - Specific Relief Act - Section 16, Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell. The trial Court dismissed the suit, leading to the plaintiff's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit. It held that the defendants admitted their signatures in the agreement to sell and that the trial Court's focus on irrelevant issues was unjustifiable. The Court also emphasized the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Issues: The issues included the trial Court's justification for dismissing the suit, the importance given to previous litigation, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the alleged personal bar under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the defendants' admission of signatures, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the erroneous focus of the trial Court on irrelevant issues.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the trial Court's judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the remaining sale consideration, and the defendants were bound to share an additional sum received with other defendants.
1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff in the suit, as against the judgement and decree dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Villupuram, in O.S.No.88 of 2007, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
(i) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement to sell dated 16.4.2007, which emerged between the plaintiff on the one side and the defendants on the other side, whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of former the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,75,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff to the defendants. Subsequently, another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- also was paid by the plaintiff to D1 and D2. Since the defendants 3 to 5 were not co-operative, the suit was filed, after issuance of pre-suit notice, with the following prayer:
"to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed and register the same:
a. In case of default of the defendants to execute the sale deed, the Honourable Court may be pleased to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants;
b. to direct the defendants to put the plaintiff into the possession of the suit properties without any obstructions through Court;
c. direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit;" (extracted as such)
(ii) Defendants 1 and 2 virtually agreed to the claim of the plaintiff. However, D3 to D5 filed the written statement resisting the suit, challenging and impugning the genuineness of the very agreement to sell mainly on the ground that on blank papers D1 and D2 obtained their signatures and thereafter, purely for the purpose of defrauding their interest, the suit was caused to be filed by the plaintiff as against all the defendants.
(iii) The trial Court framed the issues.
(iv) During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On the defendants' side the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 and B2.
(v) Ultimately, the trial Curt dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree, the plaintiff preferred this appeal on various grounds.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would develop his arguements, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:
(i) The trail Court misunderstood the scope of the suit and also the depositions on the side of the plaintiff and simply dismissed the suit upholding for gospel truth the case of D3 to D5.
(ii) D3 to D5 in their written statement candidly and categorically, without any demur, admitted their signatures in Ex.A1-the suit agreement to sell dated 16.4.2007; however, the trial Court simply expected that the plaintiff should have taken the assistance of handwriting expert to prove the signatures of D3 to D5 in Ex.A1.
(iii) Undue importance was given to the previous litigation initiated by D1 and D2 by filing O.S.No.168 of 2005, which resulted in an untenable ex parte judgment and decree.
(iv) The lower Court found erroneously that non-inclusion of Vanithadevi, i.e. the daughter of D1, was fatal to the case notwithstanding that Vanithadevi herself, even in the previous litigation had not entered appearance and in this suit also she did not get herself impleaded and made any objection.
(v) The lower Court failed to take note of the fact that without any laches on the part of the plaintiff as a genuine purchaser, he filed the suit shortly after the expiry of four months period from the date of emergence of the suit agreement to sell dated 16.4.2007.
(vi) The plaint
