Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, P. KALAIYARASAN, JJ.
P. Selvaraj and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
S. Kathiresan and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 858 of 2016
Decided On : 22-09-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, SC for Mr. M. Velmurugan
For the Respondent: Mr. S.Muthuraman
The judgment establishes the principles of readiness and willingness to perform a contract, the non-essential nature of time in a contract, and the requirement for parties to come with clean hands in seeking specific performance.
Headnote:
specific performance - sale agreement - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) - Section 16(1), time not an essence of contract - AIR 1996 SC 2814, 2015 (1) SCC 705, 2008 (1) CTC 530, AIR 2005 SC 3503(1), 2005 (7) SCC 534, 2004 (6) SCC 649, 1999 (6) SCC 337 (FB), 1996 (2) CTC 295, AIR 1977 SC 1005
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of a sale agreement for properties, alleging that the defendants failed to execute a sale deed despite receiving partial payment and failed to produce relevant documents. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs failed to mobilize funds and were not entitled to specific performance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, while the defendants' defense was based on a questionable document. The Court held that time was not an essence of the contract and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? (2) Whether time was an essence of the contract? (3) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the non-essential nature of time in the contract, and the need for parties to come with clean hands. The Court found that the plaintiffs met the requirements for specific performance and dismissed the appeal suit.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in favor of the plaintiffs were confirmed.
A.SELVAM, J.
This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-06-2008 passed in O.S.No.281 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore.
2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted O.S.No.291 of 2006 on the file of Trial Court praying to pass a decree of specific performance, in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 20-01-2006 wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.
3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the business partners and carrying their business in Chennai. The defendants 2 to 10 are the absolute owners of the suit properties. The first defendant is the Power Agent of fourth to tenth defendants, by virtue of Power Deed dated 13-10-2005. The defendants have agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs and in pursuance of the same, an agreement of sale has come into existence on 20-01-2006 wherein the total sale consideration has been fixed at Rs.28,89,900/-(Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs Eighty nine thousand and nine hundred only). On the date of execution of sale agreement, the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only). In the sale agreement, time for execution of registered sale deed has been fixed at three months. The defendants are bound to produce Patta, Chitta Adangal and other relevant documents of the suit properties to the plaintiffs before registration of a sale deed. The defendants are also bound to produce an exchange deed. Further, it is agreed to survey the suit properties with the assistance of a Government Surveyor. On 23-02-2006, the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs only). Even after receipt of the same, the defendants have not handed over the relevant documents of the suit properties. Further, they represented that the time mentioned in the sale agreement is nothing but formality. The defendants have failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. The defendants have asked the plaintiffs to be present on 20-04-2006 at about 10:30 a.m., in the Sub-Registrar Office, Perianaickenpalayam. The plaintiffs have gone there and waited till 5:30 p.m. The defendants have failed to come to Sub-Registrar Office. On 21-04-2006, a telegram has been given to the defendants wherein also it has been clearly mentioned about the non-production of relevant documents of the suit properties. On 22-04-2006, through the counsel of the defendants a false telegram has been given. On 29-04-2006, a legal notice has been issued. Since the defendants have failed to perform their part of contract, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought therein.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred that the defendants 2 to 10 are the absolute owners of the suit properties. It is agreed that on 20-01-2006, a sale agreement has come into existence and on the date of its execution, the defendant has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). Further, it is admitted that the defendants have also received another sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs only). The defendants are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. As per the terms and conditions of sale agreement dated 20-01-2006, the plaintiffs have failed to perform their part of contract. It is false to say that on 20-04-2006, the defendants have failed to come to Sub-Registrar Office. Since the plaintiffs are not in a position to mobilize funds they failed to get a registered sale deed. On 20-04-2006, a telegram has been given whereby the defendants have cancelled the sale agreement. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the Trial Court has framed as many as four issues and after contemplating both the oral and
