Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 4200
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R.S. RAMANATHAN, J.
A.M.A. Wahab
Versus
Nadar Elementary Padasalai, represented by its Secretary & Others
Appeal Suit No. 1186 of 1994 & C.M.P. No. 17279 of 1994
Decided On : 20-12-2013
For the Appellant:Satish Parasaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R3, R5, R6, R11 & R12, Mrs. Mythili Suresh, Ms. Sarvabhuman, Associates, Advocates.
The Court emphasized the importance of protecting trust property and ensuring that it is sold for a good price, as well as the discretion of the Court in granting the relief of specific performance.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Trust Property - O.P.No.156 of 1980 - Sections 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - SLP (Civil) No.3563 of 1987 - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356 - AIR 1990 SC 444 - 2008 (1) CTC 279
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to direct the defendants to execute the sale of a property as per the order passed in O.P.No.156 of 1980. The suit was dismissed, and the appeal was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no concluded contract between the parties due to the condition imposed by the Court that the permission from the Education Department was a condition precedent for executing the sale deed. The plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Issues: (i) Whether there was a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant for the sale of the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-? (ii) Whether the first defendant is bound to sell the property for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the plaintiff/appellant in the light of the order in SLP (Civil) No.3563 of 1987? (iii) Whether the Court below was right in denying the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff/appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that no concluded contract existed due to the condition imposed by the Court, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Final Decision: The Judgment and decree of the Trial Court were confirmed, and the Appeal was dismissed.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 1984 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for directing the defendants to execute the sale of the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as per the order passed in O.P.No.156 of 1980 dated 25.8.1980 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore and for the costs. The suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
The first defendant is the Trust and defendants 2 to 9 are the trustees and the second defendant is the Secretary of the first defendant. The first defendant is running a school at Nanjundapuram in the name of Nadar Higher Elementary School and it owns the schedule property. The schedule property was endowed by one Mr.Govindaswamy Nadar under a Trust Deed dated 25.4.1983 in favour of the first defendant for the purpose of providing education by running a school at Nanjundapuram. The Trust found it difficult to maintain the building as the building was very old one and therefore, decided to sell the building and utilise the sale proceeds for the purpose of offering education. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiff approached the defendants and offered to buy the property for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and considering the highest offer made by the plaintiff, the Trust and the trustees accepted the offer and agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- subject to the permission to be obtained from the District Collector, Coimbatore. Therefore, the defendants filed O.P.No.156 of 1980 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore seeking permission to sell the property for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and after paper publication, the learned District Judge granted permission to the defendants to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.09.1980 stating that the defendants should get permission, if any, from the education department before executing the sale. As the defendants were not able to get the permission from the Education Department, the order dated 25.8.1980 directing the defendants to complete the sale on or before 30.9.1980 was modified and the learned District Judge, by order dated 24.4.1981 deleted the time limit for completing the sale transaction and made it clear that the sale should be subject to sanction being accorded by the Education Department. Even during pendency of O.P.No.156 of 1980, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the Indian Overseas Bank in the name of his counsel and informed the defendants about the deposit. On 23.2.1981, Board of Trustees of the first defendant Trust also unanimously resolved to accept the offer of the plaintiff to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and also, communicated the same to the plaintiff and therefore, a concluded contract came into existence between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he was also having sufficient means to complete the sale transaction. However, the defendants changed their attitude and they failed to take any steps with the Education Department for getting permission to sell the property and tried to take advantage of the revised order dated 24.4.1981 and were coming out that they were not bound to execute the sale deed as permission from Education Department had not been forthcoming. The plaintiff understood that the Education Department also expressed their view that their sanction was not necessary. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.189 of 1983 in O.P.No.156 of 1980 to implead himself as a party so as to get the order modified and to delete the clause which requires permission from the Education Department as a condition precedent to purchase the property and that petition was dismissed and the revision was filed before the High Court and the same was pending. In
