Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 151
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. KARUPPIAH, J.
Sekar
Versus
Ramadas
S.A. No. 1503 of 2004
Decided On : 23-01-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Sounther, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shivakumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party failing to comply with the conditions of the sale agreement may not be entitled to delivery of possession, and the entitlement to possession may be conditional upon the payment of the agreed amount.
Headnote:
Sale Agreement - Delivery of Possession - Transfer of Property Act - Section 55(1)(g)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for delivery of possession and mesne profits, claiming that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the sale agreement and not paid the balance sale consideration. The appellant contended that the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract and therefore, the appellant was not bound to surrender the possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court granted the reliefs of possession and mesne profits to the respondent, while the first appellate court held that the respondent is entitled to delivery of possession only on payment of Rs.75,000. The second appellate court confirmed the first appellate court's decision.
Issues: Whether the respondent is entitled to terminate the sale agreement due to the appellant's failure to clear encumbrances and pay the purchase money within the stipulated time.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the sale agreement and not paid the balance sale consideration, while the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The first appellate court held that the respondent is entitled to delivery of possession only on payment of Rs.75,000.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate court were confirmed. The respondent was directed to pay Rs.42,000 in addition to the earlier advance amount of Rs.75,000 to the appellant within three months, and the appellant was directed to deliver the possession to the respondent within one month thereafter.
1. The appellant who is the defendant in the suit filed this second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2004 made in A.S.No.85 of 2003 and on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladudurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 10.07.2002 made in O.S.No.721 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladudurai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in the suit is referred as appellant and the plaintiff in the suit is referred as respondent hereafter.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for delivery of possession and for future profits. Briefly the case of the respondent is that the suit property belongs to the respondent. The appellant agreed to purchase the respondent's property and also the property of his brother namely S.Varadarajan's property on 14.04.1996 for sale consideration of Rs.1,17,000/- rendered in an agreement and taken possession of the properties on 14.04.1996 itself. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 23.09.1996 and Rs.40,000/- on 20.02.1997 as part of sale consideration. Since the appellant has not complied with first condition, the respondent issued a legal notice on 28.02.1997 calling upon the appellant to pay the balance consideration and get the sale deed. But, the appellant expressed his inability to raise the money immediately. Therefore, both appellant and respondent entered into a separate agreement for sale in respect of plaintiff's property on 18.04.1997. As per the above said renewed agreement, the appellant agreed to purchase the property for Rs.1,17,000/- and also agreed to treat the amount of Rs.60,000/- paid in the earlier agreement as advance for second agreement for sale. The appellant also agreed to pay the balance of Rs.27,000/- on or before 30.09.1997 and the balance of Rs.30,000/- on or before 28.02.1998. But the appellant has not complied with the conditions of the agreement and he has not paid the balance amount. Only on 01.02.1998, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and endorsed the same in the agreement and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.42,000/- on or before 31.08.1998. The respondent has rendered the appellant on 15.08.1998 calling upon him to pay the balance on or before 31.08.1998. Both sides agreed that time is essence of contract. It is also agreed that the appellant is bound to deliver the possession of land to the respondent and to receive the balance amount after adjusting the profits from 01.04.1996 till date of delivery. The appellant raised sugarcane crops for three fasils and hence he has to pay Rs.45,000/- and the respondent is ready to adjust the said amount, out of sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- as per agreement. As agreed to between the parties, the agreement dated 18.04.1997 for sale stands cancelled. The respondent has all along been ready to comply with the agreement, but the appellant was taking time to perform his part, taking advantage of the respondent's lenience. Therefore, the appellant's possession is illegal and bound to deliver the possession to the respondent. Hence the suit.
4. The appellant/defendant has filed a written statement in which, it is admitted that the appellant entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent and also admitted that the sale price was fixed at Rs.1,17,000/- and a sum of Rs.75,000/- was paid as part of sale consideration. At the time of last payment, the respondent agreed to produce all the original title deeds for the property and before the sale deed to get the signature of his daughters in the sale deed. But the appellant had not kept up his promise and without performing his part of the agreement, respondent gave a legal notice. Immediately, the appellant approached the respondent and reported that the appellant is ready to perform his part of the agreement and requested the respondent to produce the original title deeds and also to get signature of the daughters. The respondent has postponing the same on one ground or other. Now, the respondent has
