Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Poorani Ammal
Versus
S.T. Prabhavathi
A.S.No.147 of 2009
Decided on: 08-03-2012
Specific Performance - Contract for Sale of Property - Specific Relief Act - Section 16, Section 20 - [KEYWORD] - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act - Section 16, Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell a property, which the defendant resisted, claiming the agreement was forged and she had no intention to sell. The trial court decreed the suit, but the defendant appealed on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's sale of the property pending the suit did not deprive her of the right to challenge the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform. The court also held that the defendant's contentions lacked consistency and credibility, and the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's sale of the property pending the suit deprived her of the right to challenge the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform. 2. Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit despite evidence disputing the genuineness of the agreement. 3. Whether the non-framing of an issue relating to the plaintiff's readiness and willingness was fatal to the judgment. 4. Whether there was perversity or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's sale of the property pending the suit did not deprive her of the right to challenge the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform. The court also found that the defendant's contentions lacked consistency and credibility, and the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case G. Rajasuria Poorani Ammal vs. S.T. Prabhavathi:
Case Details * Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras * Case Number: A.S.No.147 of 2009 * Date Decided: 08-03-2012 * Subject: Civil Law - Property Law (!) * Acts Referred: Evidence Act (S.114(f), S.114(e)) and Specific Relief Act (S.16, S.16(c), S.20) (!)
Facts of the Case * The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.03.2005 (Ex.A1) for a total consideration of Rs.6,51,200/-, with an advance of Rs.1,01,001/- already paid (!) . * The defendant resisted the suit, claiming the agreement was forged and fabricated, stating she never intended to sell and was a widow (!) . * The defendant alleged that a broker named Rajendran obtained her signatures on blank papers for a loan of Rs.50,000/- and used them to create the agreement (!) . * The defendant claimed she had no knowledge of the plaintiff and that the property was undervalued (!) . * The trial court decreed the suit, and the defendant appealed (!) .
Issues Raised in Appeal 1. Whether the defendant's sale of the property pendente lite (Ex.A6) deprived her of the right to challenge the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness (!) . 2. Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit despite evidence disputing the genuineness of the agreement (!) . 3. Whether the non-framing of an issue relating to the plaintiff's readiness and willingness was fatal to the judgment (!) . 4. Whether there was perversity or illegality in the trial court's judgment (!) .
Court's Findings and Reasoning * Locus Standi: The court held that selling the property pendente lite does not deprive the defendant of her right to challenge the agreement or the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, citing the principle that the transferee cannot take pleas antithetical to the vendor (!) (!) (!) (!) . * Genuineness of Agreement: The court found the defendant's case inconsistent; in the written statement, she claimed a broker obtained blank signatures, but during trial, she claimed the plaintiff obtained them from the broker to fabricate the agreement (!) (!) . * Readiness and Willingness: The court noted the plaintiff sent a notice letter (Ex.A2) via Certificate of Posting, attracting presumptions under Section 114(f) and (e) of the Evidence Act regarding the common course of business (!) (!) . * Defendant's Conduct: The defendant's alienation of the property shortly after filing a counter claiming she would not do so demonstrated her lack of respect for the court and contradicted her claims of innocence (!) (!) . * Trial Court's Discretion: The court affirmed that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence, noting the defendant's prevaricative stands and the lack of perversity or illegality in the findings regarding the agreement's genuineness (!) (!) (!) . * Non-Framing of Issue: The court ruled that even though a specific issue on readiness and willingness was not framed, the trial court had dealt with the matter in detail in its judgment, making the omission non-fatal (!) .
Final Decision * The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the arguments advanced by the defendant (!) (!) (!) (!) . * There was no order as to costs (!) .
1. 13.11.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in O.S.No.59 of 2006, which was filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the contract to sell the suit property.
2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
a] The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit seeking the specific performance of Ex.A1 the agreement to sell, which emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant on 10.03.2005 whereby, the latter, being the land owner agreed to sell in favour of the former the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,51,200/- and an advance amount of Rs.1,01,001/- was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The time stipulated for performance was three months. The defendant subsequently was indulging in dilatory tactics, whereby a letter was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant expressing the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract and also calling upon the defendant to perform her part of the contract. Since there was no response, the suit was filed.
b] The defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit on various grounds,inter alia thus:
(i) The suit agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated one and the defendant, being a widow, never intended to sell her land at all.
(ii) The suit property was under valued in Ex.A1. She was in need of only a sum of Rs.50,000/-, for which, she approached one Rajendran of Kandanpalayam, who was a land broker. Taking undue advantage of the situation the said Rajendran obtained a few signatures of the defendant in blank papers as security for the due repayment of the loan amount, which he promised to obtain in her favour. Afterwards, she received only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loan through Rajendran for which, she also paid interest for some time. Thereafter, when she came to know of the fact that the said Rajendran hoodwinked her, she stopped paying the interest.
(iii) In respect of the co-operative loan availed by her deceased husband, she pledged her jewels and paid part of the loan dues. Subsequently, the loan itself was waived. She did not know, who the plaintiff was and in such a case, absolutely, there was no necessity for her to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, she prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
c] The trial court framed the relevant issues.
d] During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, she examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendant, she examined herself as DW1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Ex.B1 was marked and Exs.X1 and X2 the court documents were also marked.
e] Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, advanced his arguments, a thumbnail sketch of the same would run thus:
(i) The trial court failed to take into consideration the defendant's documents in proper perspective but simply believed the case of the plaintiff for gospel truth and decreed it.
(ii) The plaintiff was admittedly residing in Chennai; whereas the suit property is situated in Kandrakottai village in Cuddalore District. There was absolutely no chance of the defendant knowing the plaintiff.
(iii) Ranganathan, the brother-in-law of the defendant had no role to play in allegedly bringing about Ex.A1, the agreement to sell.
(iv) The depositions of Ranganathan and the other witnesses on the defendant's side were not taken into consideration by the trial court. Absolutely, there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the plaintiff in allegedly draftin
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
