Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Mr.J.Vincent - Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr.S.Srinivasan - Defendant
Civil Suit No.413 of 2011
Decided On : 01-10-2015
Important Points
Subject
Contract Law - Specific Performance
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482
Headnote
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE AGREEMENT - EXECUTION OF SALE DEED - PAYMENT OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS - BURDEN OF PROOF - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 16(C) - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 53-A.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement entered into between him and the defendant for the sale of a suit property. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid Rs.30 lakhs towards the sale consideration and was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. The defendant denied the execution of the sale agreement and claimed that the plaintiff had not paid any amount towards the sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement and that he had not paid the entire sale consideration as alleged in the plaint. The court also held that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he had not come to court with clean hands. The court dismissed the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged agreement of sale, dated 17.05.2009, is true and valid document as pleaded by the plaintiff, or it is fabricated document as contended by the defendant ? 2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform the contract from the date of agreement till the date of plaint ? 3. Whether it is true that the defendant has received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-towards the sale consideration ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the agreement ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance relief ? 6. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to ?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement and that he had not paid the entire sale consideration as alleged in the plaint. The court also held that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he had not come to court with clean hands. The court dismissed the suit.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed.
For plaintiff : Mr.M.Kempraj
For defendant : Mr.S.Sethuraman for M/s.G.Senthilkumar and R.Baskar
The case of the plaintiff in a nut-shell is as follows:
(a) The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property purchased by him in 2009 from CMDA. The defendant entered into sale agreement with the plaintiff on 17.05.2009 for sale consideration of Rs.50 lakhs and received advance of Rs.10 lakhs, out of which, Rs.7,50,000/-was paid through Cheque, dated 08.05.2009 and the balance Rs.2,50,000/-was paid through cash on the date of sale agreement, and in view of the huge amount received as advance, the defendant voluntarily handed over the physical possession of the superstructure of the suit schedule property. As the defendant was not in a position to pay the sale consideration to the property, even after the allotment was made by the CMDA, the plaintiff rendered financial help to the defendant to pay the balance sale consideration to the CMDA and to register the suit property.
(b) The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-in favour of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and also a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-by Cheque, which was encashed by the defendant.
(c) The defendant received a sum of Rs.30 lakhs towards the sale agreement, dated 17.05.2009 as a part sale consideration. The plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.20 lakhs to the defendant, who has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in his favour.
(d) The defendant intentionally dragged to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, inspite of repeated request made by him. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant.
(e) The defendant filed a false complaint, dated 17.06.2010 before the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, alleging that the plaintiff is trying to grab the suit property by creating false documents and the defendant filed Crl.O.P.No.18698 of 2010 before this Court to register First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of the said complaint and investigate the same. This Court, by order dated 26.08.2010, directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai to register the said complaint and act further in accordance with law.
(f) Accordingly, the said complaint was registered as FIR, vide Crime No.565 of 2010 by the Inspector of Police, XV Team of Central Crime Branch. After enquiry, the investigating officer warned the defendant not to play with the official machinery for his own gain and filed a final report.
(g) Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a Police complaint before the Inspector of Police on 27.05.2011, copy of which was addressed to the Chief Minister's Cell and jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Police and the said complaint had been assigned CSR Number and subsequently, the plaintiff also filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Greater Chennai on 30.05.2011.
(h) Hence, the plaintiff has filed this Civil Suit praying for the relief of specific performance to perform the contract on his part on receipt of the balance sale consideration in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-from the plaintiff and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, agent, any one claiming through them from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the day-to-day business activities of the suit schedule mentioned property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, agent, or any one claiming through them from making any encumbrance over the suit schedule mentioned property.
2. The defendant has filed written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, stating as follows:
(a) The defendant has been doing the flower vending business for the past 50 years. Initially, he was doing business at Flower Bazaar, near Parrys Corner and subsequently at Koya
