Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1561
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. PALANIVELU, J.
Sarojini & Others
Versus
N.A. Kandaswamy
A.S.No. 988 of 2007
Decided on: 09-04-2013
For the Appellants:Mrs. P.T. Asha for M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:T.R. Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for M/s. R.R. Rajaraman, Advocate.
The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the entitlement to market value of the property for execution of the sale deed were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - [READY AND WILLING TO PERFORM, MARKET VALUE, RELIEF] - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c), 1997) 2 SCC 200, 2010 (3) CTC 1, 2011(8) SCC 601] - The court analyzed the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the demand for market value of the property, and the relief entitled to the parties. The court referred to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c), and various case laws to establish the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and held that the defendants were not entitled to the market value of the property. The court confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the lower court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants for a property. The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the contract as the defendants were not complying with the demand to execute the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants were not entitled to the market value of the property, and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the lower court.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout? 2. Whether the defendants were entitled to the market value of the suit property for execution of the sale deed? 3. To what relief are the parties entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract was established, and the defendants were not entitled to the market value of the property. The court referred to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c), and various case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration before the trial court within four months, and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of such deposit.
1. The following are the averments contained in the plaint filed in O.S.No.634 of 2004:
1.(a) Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants on 29.11.1996 by and under which the defendants agreed to sell the property more fully described in the plaint schedule to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,30,000/-. On the date of the agreement itself the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-which the defendants received and acknowledged receipt of the same in the agreement of sale itself. On the same day the defendants also delivered into the hands of the plaintiff the original registered will dated 17.12.1975 executed by one Subbanna Goundar, and also copies of chitta, adangal and encumbrance certificate relating to the suit property. They also delivered into the hands of the plaintiff a registration copy of a document of Exchange (Doc.No.700/65) and a Heirship certificate. As per the agreement, the time stipulated for the completion of the sale is four months, which expires with effect from 29.3.1997. The plaintiff has always been and is ready and willing to purchase the property from the defendants after paying the balance sale consideration and getting the sale deed registered at his expenses. He has been demanding from the defendants the execution of the sale deed of the suit property in his favour at his expenses all through.
1. (b) As the defendants were not complying with this demand, the plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice dated 18.1.1997, calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed with reference to the suit property in his favour at his expenses. Though the telegram was received by the defendants, none directly responded to the telegram. But the 2nd defendant sent a copy of a notice that she had addressed to Sri. J.D. Socretes, Advocate, who apparently had sent a notice to Mrs. Sarojini on behalf of the 1st defendant.
1. (c) As the plaintiff did not receive any direct reply from any of the defendants, to the telegram that he sent, the plaintiff sent a detailed notice by registered post to all the defendants through his counsel on 8.2.1997. In that notice the plaintiff has called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed with reference to the plaint mentioned property in his favour at his expenses, after receiving the balance of sale price in order he could get it registered. Though this notice has been received by defendants 2 to 4, they have not sent any reply.
1. (d) The defendants have no right whatsoever to refuse to execute a sale deed in his favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Plaintiff apprehends that the defendants are not willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff because they are trying to sell the property to others for a higher price, than what has been stipulated under the sale agreement.
1. (e) The plaintiff has been ready and willing to play his part of the contract. The plaintiff is willing to deposit the balance purchase price as required under law and get the sale deed executed in his favour at his cost by the defendants. The defendants know that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to play his part of the contract. The fact that none of the defendants had replied to either the telegram or the detailed notice that the plaintiff had sent to them shows that they have no excuse whatsoever in not executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had inserted a paper publication of warning on 11.2.97 in Dinakaran daily.
1. (f) For the reasons stated supra the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties in his favour at his cost on his depositing the balance sale price into court at the appropriate time, as directed by this Hon'ble cour and hence the court may be pleased to pass a decree directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff at his cost on h
