Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 748
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
C. Indirani - Appellant
Vs.
R. Raju & Ors. - Respondents
AS(MD) No.310 of 2008
Decided On : 18-04-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Devaraj.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, SC.
The Plaintiff must come to court with clean hands, disclose all material facts, and seek declaratory relief for the cancellation of the agreement in a suit for specific performance.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Specific Relief Act - Section 16(c) - Summary: The court considered a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for a property. The Plaintiff sought specific performance and refund of advance amount. The Defendants admitted the sale agreement and advances received but claimed the agreement was terminated. The court found that the Plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, suppressed material facts, and did not seek a declaratory relief for the cancellation of the agreement. The court dismissed the appeal suit and ordered the refund of the entire amount lying in the credit of the original suit to the Plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement for a property. The Defendants admitted the sale agreement and advances received but claimed the agreement was terminated. The court found that the Plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, suppressed material facts, and did not seek a declaratory relief for the cancellation of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, suppressed material facts, and did not seek a declaratory relief for the cancellation of the agreement. The court dismissed the appeal suit and ordered the refund of the entire amount lying in the credit of the original suit to the Plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included whether the sale agreement came to an end, whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the advance amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, suppressed material facts, and did not seek a declaratory relief for the cancellation of the agreement. The court dismissed the appeal suit and ordered the refund of the entire amount lying in the credit of the original suit to the Plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal suit and ordered the refund of the entire amount lying in the credit of the original suit to the Plaintiff.
This appeal suit had been filed by the Plaintiff in OS.No.17 of 2005, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit by judgement dated 19.9.2007 by the I Additional District Judge, Trichirappalli.
2. The above suit had been filed, seeking specific performance within a time to be fixed by the court, failing which, the court should execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff and for costs.
3. In the plaint, it had been stated that the suit property, namely, the land measuring 84 cents in Ayan Nanja SF 18/3 in Devadanam Village within Trichirappalli City Corporation Limit, Trichirappalli belonged to the Defendants and they had agreed to sell the same to the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-. An agreement of sale was entered into on 20.3.2002 and the said sale agreement was registered. An advance of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid. Thereafter, the Defendants received another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 20.7.2002 towards the balance sale consideration, which had been endorsed in the agreement. A supplemental agreement of sale dated 8.9.2002 was also entered into between the parties. A further advance of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 14.12.2002, which was also endorsed on the agreement of sale.
4. The Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the sale agreement. She had to pay the balance of Rs.3,70,000/-. She was ready with the said amount. It had been stated that time is not the essence of the agreement. The Defendants were to deliver the original title deeds. They had not produced the same. The Plaintiff had been demanding execution of the sale deed. However, the Defendants kept evading the requests of the Plaintiff. Consequently, a telegraphic notice was issued to the 2nd Defendant on 17.1.2003. The 1st Defendant received the telegram, but they did not come forward to execute the sale deed. They had not produced the original title deeds. It had been stated that the Defendants attempted to alienate the suit property by suppressing the agreement of sale dated 20.3.2002 and the supplemental agreement of sale dated 18.9.2002. A telegraphic notice was issued to the Sub Registrar, Joint III, Town Hall Road, Trichy on 27.1.2005 and also a notice was issued with a copy to the 1st Defendant, requesting not to register any sale deed in favour of third parties with respect to the suit property. Since there had been no reply from the Defendants, the suit had been filed for the reliefs as stated above.
5. The Defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The 1st Defendant has filed a written statement, admitting ownership and admitting that they had entered into an agreement of sale with the Plaintiff on 20.3.2002 for a total consideration of Rs.5,10,000/- and also admitting the supplemental agreement of sale. the Defendants also admitted to receipt of advances of Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. It had been stated that time for registration of sale deed expired on 17.2.2002. This was informed to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was further informed that the Defendants were not interested in conveying the property. However, they received a notice on 17.1.2003 that the Plaintiff was ready to execute the sale deed. The Defendants waited in the Joint Sub Registrar Office, Town Hall Road, Trichy from morning till evening, but the Plaintiff did not turn up for execution of the sale deed. The Plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance amount. The Defendants issued an advocate notice dated 28.3.2003 and informed that the agreement of sale had been cancelled. Consequently, there was no agreement subsisting between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff gave a complaint before the Fort Police Station, Trichirappalli to get back the advance amount with interest at 60% p.a. After lapse of two years, the Plaintiff issued a legal notice, calling upon the Defendants to receive the balance sale consideration. The reason for the delay and for revival of the interest of the Plaintiff was due to the increase
