Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
S.Kanagasabai Chettiar - Appellant
Vs.
M.Ilayanathan - Respondents
A.S.(MD)No.24 of 2009, M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2009
Decided On : 01-08-2017
specific performance - oral agreement of sale - Specific Relief Act, Section 14(1)(b), Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act 1908, Section 49 of the Registration Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an oral agreement of sale for a property. The defendants claimed that the agreement was cancelled and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement of sale had been cancelled by the defendants, and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance? 2. Whether the defendants 7 to 10 purchased the suit properties after the agreement on 05.08.1996? 3. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? 4. Whether the suit property is correct as mentioned in the plaint? 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The agreement of sale was not enforceable as the property was not clearly identified, and the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the agreement. The court also referred to specific legal provisions such as Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act 1908, and Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed.
1. This appeal suit had been filed, against the judgment and decree, made in O.S.No.403 of 2004, by the I Additional District Court, Madurai, dated 20.09.2007.
2. The above suit had been filed, seeking specific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated, 05.08.1996 against the Defendants 1, 3 to 5 and directing them to execute and register the sale deed for a sum of Rs. 8,51,000/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Only) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, after receiving balance sale consideration and on failure, for further direction to the court to register the sale deed and for costs.
3. It had been stated in the plaint that there was an oral agreement of sale, dated 05.08.1996 between the plaintiff and Maruthanayagam Mudaliar and the first defendant, M.Ilayanathan, the third defendant M.Chokkalingam, the fourth defendant, M.Nandakumar and the fifth defendant M.Matcharaja. It had been further stated in the plaint that late Maruthanayagam Mudaliar and the defendants 1 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu undivided family, but however, the second defendant, M.Arumugam did not join in the agreement. It had been stated that under the said oral agreement, the suit property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Only) per cent. At the time of the oral agreement, a sale advance receipt, dated 05.08.1996 was executed by Maruthanayagam Muthaliyar and the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants for having received an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). It was also stated that possession was handed over to the plaintiff. It was stated that the original title was to be given, but it was not given. Subsequently, Maruthanayagam Muthaliyar, died in January 1998. It had been stated that the property has to be surveyed by the Tashildar and it was also not done. In the mean while, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants made an attempt to sell the property to third parties. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a notice in Dinakaran Newspaper on 13.07.1998. The defendants sent a reply on 11.06.1998 stating that they had cancelled the agreement. There was a Panchayat held in between the parties. However, the defendants sold a portion of the property to the defendants 7 to 10. Stating that such a sale is illegal and claiming that oral agreement has to be performed, the suit has been filed, seeking specific performance.
4. The second defendant has filed a written statement, stating that he was not a party to the oral agreement and that he had also not signed in the sale advance receipt and consequently, he was not bound by any agreement entered into by Maruthanayagam Muthaliyar or his sons, who were shown as the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5. He also stated that there was no relief sought against him and consequently, he claimed that he was an unnecessary party to the suit.
5. The defendants 1, 3 to 6 have also filed a separate written statement, stating that it was true that there was an oral agreement and an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was received on 05.08.1998, towards the land in R.S.No.35/1C at Uthangudi Village, Madurai. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not put in possession. It was also stated that either they or their father did not agree to divide the suit property into house plots. It had been stated that the plaintiff had not performed his part of the agreement and after nearly two years, they cancelled the agreement after putting the plaintiff on notice of the same. It had been stated that they have also sent a notice with respect to the cancellation of the agreement. It had been further sated that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to purchase the property. It had been further stated that they have sold a portion of the property to a third party, exercising their right as owners. They claimed that the suit should be dismissed.
6. The defendants 7 to 10 have also filed a separate written statement, stating that they were the bona fide
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
