Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. VIMALA
K. Manoharan
Versus
T. Janaki Ammal & Others
A.S. Nos.291 & 472 of 2011
Decided On: 29-03-2012
Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Sections 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 17(1-A) & 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1882 - The court held that the plaintiff had continuously shown readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and the agreement of sale was valid despite being unregistered. The court also allowed the appeal in part, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed excluding specific plots and permitting the withdrawal of the balance sale consideration deposited by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants evaded executing the sale deed despite receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had entered into agreements with third parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had continuously shown readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and the agreement of sale was valid despite being unregistered. The court also directed the defendants to execute the sale deed excluding specific plots and permitted the withdrawal of the balance sale consideration deposited by the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 2. Whether the oral evidence adduced to establish the defence plea was admissible? 3. Whether the defence plea of plaintiff agreeing to allot six plots was substantiated? 4. Whether the agreement of sale was invalid for want of registration? 5. Whether the judgment of the trial court directing the defendants to pay costs was erroneous? 6. Relief entitled to the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the admissibility of oral evidence to establish the defence plea, and the substantiation of the defence plea were crucial in the court's decision. The court also clarified the validity of the agreement of sale despite being unregistered and addressed the erroneous judgment of the trial court directing the defendants to pay costs.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the appeal by the plaintiff was allowed in part. The defendants were directed to execute the sale deed excluding specific plots, and the balance sale consideration deposited by the plaintiff was permitted to be withdrawn. The appeal by the defendants was dismissed, and both parties were directed to bear their respective costs in the appeals.
R. Banumathi, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his Suit for Specific Performance in O.S. No.2 of 2010, unsuccessful Plaintiff has preferred A.S No.291 of 2011. Being aggrieved by the direction of the Trial Court to pay costs to the Plaintiff, the Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred Appeal in A.S. No.472 of 2011. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the Suit.
2. Defendants 1 to 3 are the owners of the suit property in Kallakurichi village. The suit property is a vacant land measuring a total extent of 3.16 acres in survey Nos.63/3 (35 cents), 63/4 (45 cents), 63/6 (57 cents), 63/7 (1.401/2 acres), 63/8 (8 cents), 63/9 (19 cents) & 63/10 (7 cents) and path way to an extent of 41/2 cents respectively in Porapadakurichi village Panchayat in Kallakurichi Panchayat Union. The suit property was allotted to the 1st Defendant through a family Settlement Deed dated 25.6.2008. The Defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff and paid an advance of `1,00,000/-. The total sale consideration was agreed at `42,66,000/-. On 13.7.2009, Defendants 1 to 3 have entered into Ex.A.1-Agreement of Sale and on the same day paid further amount of `24,00,900/- towards sale consideration. balance amount of `47,66,000/- has to be paid within a period of 2 ½ months i.e., before 30.9.2009.
3. Case of Plaintiff is that in spite of the specific undertaking of the Defendants 1 to 3 execute the Sale Deed, when the Plaintiff approached the Defendants 1 to 3 for execution of the Sale Deed, the Defendants 1 to 3 were evasive. Plaintiff came to know from reliable sources that the Defendants 1 to 3 are trying to alienate the suit property to some third parties. Stating that in spite of his oral demands calling upon, the Defendants 1 to 3 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of `17,66,000/-, the Defendants to 3 were evading to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for Specific Performance and also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit property. Even at the time of filing of the Suit, the Plaintiff has deposited the balance sale consideration of `17,66,000/- into the Court. The Sub-Registrar, Kallakurichi was also shown as 4th Defendant and Plaintiff has sought for permanent injunction restraining the Sub-Registrar, Kallakurichi from registering the Sale Deed by Defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the suit property.
4. Admitting the execution of Agreement of Sale on 13.7.2009 [Ex.A1] and admitting receipt of advance amount of `1,00,000/- and also `24,00,000/-, Defendants 1 to 3 filed the Written Statement. According to Defendants 1 to 3, at the time of execution of agreement, it was orally agreed that the Plaintiff would draw a lay out plan for 72 plots by the end of July, 2009 and that the Plaintiff would allot six plots to the Defendants 1 to 3, and that a Sale Deed would be executed in favour of the Plaintiff barring those six plots. The Defendants 1 to 3 believed the promise made by the Plaintiff and subscribed their signature in Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale. Further case of the Defendants 1 to 3 is that Plot Nos.112, 3, 31, 32 and 33 were identified by the Defendants 1 to 3 and the Plaintiff had also agreed to exclude those items when the Sale Deed was executed by the Defendants 1 to 3. According to Defendants 1 to 3, the Plaintiff had given an advertisement that all the plots are available for sale and that the Plaintiff had not excluded the six plots identified by the Defendants 1 to 3 and contrary to the agreement, the Plaintiff started entering into agreements with the third parties and thereby, he was raising funds for the balance of sale consideration. Stating that the Plaintiff did not have the wherewithal to pay the balance sale consideration and that his intention was only to sell plots at huge price and from out of the sale of plots to pay the balance consideration and th
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
