Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.B.K. Vasuki, J.
K. Sugumar - Appellant
Versus
P.K. Sundaram - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2010 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013
Decided On : 29-04-2015
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Suit Property – Andhra Bank financial Services – Denied Execution – First respondent entered into a sale agreement appellant for sale of suit property at rate and received a sum of advance pursuant to sale agreement possession of property was also handed over to appellant first respondent agreed to execute a sale deed within six months from date of handing over original title deed to appellant – Appellant having been in possession of property spent a sum of first respondent while entering into sale agreement stated that though he is absolute owner of property he will also get signatures of respondents who are his brother and son of his predeceased brother respectively – Held, transfer otherwise but to render it subservient to rights of parties to a litigation respondent has totally denied execution of sale agreement and also had taken a specific plea that the suit properties are joint family property produced any evidence within his knowledge and same would go to show that he has not come to court with clean hands, but only with an idea of defeating right accrued to purchaser under a valid sale agreement equitable discretion to grant or not to grant a relief for specific performance also depends upon conduct of necessary ingredient has to be proved and established by plaintiff so that discretion would be exercised judiciously plaintiff – Defendant does not come with clean hands and suppresses material facts and evidence and misleads court then such discretion should not be exercised by refusing to grant specific performance – Second appeal is allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant entered into a sale agreement with the first respondent for the sale of a property, received an advance, and took possession of the property with the understanding that the sale would be completed within six months by executing a sale deed (!) (!) .
The first respondent denied the execution of the sale agreement, claiming that the documents were forged and that the transaction was only a collateral security for a loan, not a sale (!) (!) .
The property involved is alleged to be part of a joint family estate, and the burden of proving whether the property is joint family or individual property was a significant issue in the case (!) (!) .
The courts analyzed the evidence and found that the sale agreement was valid and that the first respondent had indeed entered into the agreement with the appellant (!) (!) .
The courts also examined whether the properties involved were absolute or joint family properties, and concluded that some of the properties were absolute properties of the first respondent, while others were joint family properties (!) (!) .
The courts held that the agreement was not hit by the provisions of the relevant property transfer law during pending litigation, especially considering the doctrine of lis pendens, which binds transferees during ongoing litigation (!) (!) .
The conduct of the first respondent, including his denial of the agreement and failure to produce supporting documents, was viewed unfavorably, indicating that he did not come to court with clean hands (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the discretion to grant specific performance depends on the conduct of the parties and that suppression of material facts can justify denying relief (!) (!) .
The appellate courts found that the first respondent's assertions regarding joint family ownership were not sufficiently proved and that the sale agreement was enforceable against him, including his undivided share in the property (!) (!) .
The final decision was to allow the appeal, decree the suit for specific performance, and direct the first respondent to execute the sale deed within a specified period, with the appellant required to deposit the balance of the sale consideration if any (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning, findings, and ultimate decision, reflecting the principles of contract law, property law, and equitable discretion in granting specific performance.
K.B.K. Vasuki, J.
The plaintiff is the appellant herein.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 12.04.2003.
3. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows :-
The first respondent entered into a sale agreement dated 12.04.2003 with the appellant for the sale of suit property at the rate of Rs. 500/- per cent and received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance. In pursuant to the sale agreement, the possession of the property was also handed over to the appellant. The first respondent agreed to execute a sale deed within six months from the date of handing over the original title deed to the appellant. The appellant having been in possession of the property spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and raised casuarina trees. The first respondent while entering into the sale agreement stated that though he is the absolute owner of the property he will also get the signatures of the respondents 2 and 3, who are his brother and the son of his predeceased brother respectively. The appellant paid further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 16.05.2003 to the first respondent. Whenever the appellant was approaching the first respondent on many occasion requesting him to complete the sale transaction, the first respondent was giving evading replies and the first respondent suddenly issued a notice dated 10.10.2003, which was actually forwarded on 07.11.2003, alleging that the appellant should not enter into the suit lands. The appellant sent a suitable reply stating that he was already in possession, ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the time is not the essence of the contract, for which there was no reply. Since the first respondent was not coming forward to execute the sale deed, the suit came to be filed for the above stated relief.
4. The respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte and the first respondent alone filed a written statement inter alia stating as follows: The execution of the sale agreement, handing over possession and receiving advance amount were all denied. The first respondent would state that the property is the joint family property of his father Kandasamy Mudaliar and his brothers Thanikachalam and Arumugam and also a sister Padma, who constitute a Hindu undivided joint family. The first respondent would further state that the members of the joint family keep the suit properties in joint possession and enjoyment. The first respondent also states that he was in need of money for his transport business and he approached the father of the appellant by name Krishnadevaraja Reddiar, who promised to advance money and insisted the respondent to execute a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property as a collateral security. The first respondent signed in stamp papers, which were given as collateral security for the money advance and he never entered into any sale agreement. Therefore the alleged sale agreement was not executed by the first respondent and the first respondent signed in stamp papers with an intention to create a collateral security to the money advanced i.e. sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Though, it is true that further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received from the father of the appellant, it was not endorsed on any sale agreement, but in blank paper. The alleged sale agreement dated 12.04.2003 is fabricated and concocted document and the first respondent was and is always ready to repay the debt of Rs.3,00,000/-. However, suppressing the above facts, the appellant has filed the suit for specific performance, which is not maintainable. This respondent has no absolute right over the property.
5. With the above averments, the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakkam framed triable issues and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence found that when the property belongs to several persons and an agreement executed by one of the person who holds a fraction of his share, cannot be enforced and therefore, declined to grant the specific performanc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
