Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
R. Vijayalakshmi - Appellant
Vs.
K.C. Sathiskumar & Ors. - Respondents
A.S.(MD)No.57 of 2010, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 12-04-2017
Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - 17.03.2005 - [Specific Performance] - [Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 10, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c), Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 2(14)] - The court discussed the legal enforceability of the agreement of sale dated 17.03.2005 and the admissibility of the document. It highlighted the inadequacy of the description of the property, lack of clarity on the area and boundaries, and the absence of the plaintiff's signature in the document. The court referred to legal provisions from the Indian Contract Act, Specific Relief Act, and Indian Stamp Act to analyze the enforceability of the agreement, emphasizing the need for a clear and identifiable property in an agreement of sale.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17.03.2005. The defendant denied the agreement and claimed to have sold the property to other parties. The trial court granted the relief of specific performance, but the appellate court set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit, directing the return of the advance amount to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement of sale dated 17.03.2005 was not legally enforceable due to inadequate description of the property, lack of clarity on the area and boundaries, and absence of the plaintiff's signature. It held that the suit was vexatious and the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands.
Issues: The main issue was the legal enforceability of the agreement of sale dated 17.03.2005. Additional issues included the bona fide purchase by the defendants and the entitlement of the plaintiff to permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an agreement of sale must have a clear and identifiable property, and if the property cannot be identified, the relief of specific performance cannot be granted.
Final Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit. It directed the return of the advance amount to the plaintiff with interest.
This appeal had been filed against the judgement and decree made in OS.No.106 of 2007, by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai, dated 17.12.2009.
2. The first defendant in O.S.No.106 of 2007 on the file of Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai is the appellant herein. The first defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009. The first respondent herein was the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 herein were the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.106 of 2007.
3. The plaintiff had filed the said suit, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 17.03.2005 entered between the plaintiff and the first defendant, on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) and for a direction to register a sale deed, failing which the Court shall register the sale deed at the cost of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and for permanent injunction and for costs of the Suit.
4. In the plaint, it had been stated that the first defendant / appellant had entered into an agreement of sale, agreeing to sell the schedule property for a consideration of Rs.30,500/- per cent and had paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. It had been stated that the sale deed will be executed after measuring the property on receipt of the balance sale consideration. The agreement of sale was entered on 17.03.2005. The husband of the first defendant/appellant had written the sale agreement and also attested the same. It was written on a white paper and two rupee one, revenue stamps were affixed. The plaintiff/first respondent had insisted several times to measure the suit property. The plaintiff/first respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the sale agreement. However, the first defendant/appellant had executed a sale deed dated 16.05.2007 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 / respondents 2 and 3. Consequently, a notice dated 06.07.2007 was issued. The first defendant/appellant denied the agreement of sale. Claiming that the first defendant/appellant should be directed to specifically perform the agreement of sale dated 17.03.2005, the suit has been filed, seeking the reliefs as mentioned earlier.
5. In the written statement filed by the first defendant/appellant, the agreement of sale was specifically denied. It was also denied that the sale deed dated 16.7.2007 between the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 was a sham and illegal. It had been stated that she had conveyed the property by a registered sale deed dated 16.07.2007 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 and that they are in possession. It had been stated that the agreement of sale deed dated 17.03.2005 is not at all an agreement and has no legal effect. It is not an admissible document. It had been stated that the plaintiff/ first respondent is a broker and he had approached the husband of the first defendant/appellant, namely, Ramamoorthy and had paid the advance only as a speculative purchaser. It had been stated that the suit should be dismissed.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the second defendant/second respondent and adopted by the third defendant/ third respondent, it had been claimed that they are bona fide purchasers and are in possession of the suit property. It had been further stated that the agreement of sale dated 17.03.2005 is not admissible in law. They also claimed that the suit should be dismissed.
7. The parties went to trial on the basis of their respective rival pleadings. The learned Additional District Judge, Madurai had framed the following issues for consideration, namely,
1. Whether the first defendant had entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff and in this regard only the document dated 17.03.2005 executed?
2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Permanent Injunction?
4. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?
8. The
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
