IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, M.S. RAMESH, JJ.
R. LEELA AMMAL - APPELLANT
Vs.
V. GOPAL - RESPONDENT
Appeal Suit No. 292 of 2011
Decided On : 06-06-2017
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 (c) - Indian Evidence Act - Section 114 (f) and (g) - Suit decree - Auction sale - Entered into an agreement of sale - Defendant has made some allegations with ulterior and sinister designs, to alienate the suit property to some third party and called upon the plaintiff to receive back the advance amount from her - In such circumstances, the plaintiff has instituted the suit before the trial court - Held, Plaintiff has immediately filed the suit and sought for the relief of specific performance - Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has failed to fulfil his obligations contained in the agreement of sale - Contains certain pre-conditions on the part of the plaintiff to deposit the amount into the Court in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to fulfil her part of the contract by either refusing or declining to execute the sale deed, however, the plaintiff did not deposit the amount as required and therefore he is not entitled for the relief of specific performance - It is further stated that before filing the suit, the plaintiff did not deposit the balance sale consideration as contained in the agreement of sale - Court has already dealt with the above submission of the counsel for the defendant that it is not mandatory for the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration without the direction of the Court - Appeal dismissed.
R. Subbiah, J.
The defendant has come forward with this appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in O.S. No. 10 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Vellore by which the Court below decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 05.04.2008.
2. For easy reference, the parties are referred to in this appeal as per their rank in the suit.
3. As per the averments contained in the plaint, the suit property is the absolute property of the defendant/appellant. She obtained the said property in the auction sale conducted in E.P. No. 458 of 1993 in O.S. No. 661 of 1975 as Plaintiff/Decree Holder on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Vellore. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining a separate Patta bearing No. 1263 and Patta passbook bearing No. 353026 issued by the Tahsildar, Vellore. On 05.04.2008, she entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff not only on her own accord but also with the knowledge and consent of her brother P. Shanmugam and her sister P. Vanaja and one D. Jayaprakash, son of C.S. Dhanapal of Mathi Nagar, Vellore and in their presence, she agreed to sell the suit property, which belonged to her, to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 580/- per square feet for a total sale consideration of Rs. 22,73,310/-. On the same day, the defendant also received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of her brother Shanmugam and sister Vanaja, who are witness to the agreement of sale. As per the said agreement of sale, the defendant has to execute the sale deed and register it in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,73,310/- within three months i.e., on or before 04.07.2008. While executing the agreement of sale dated 05.04.2008, in the said agreement itself, the defendant, on her own accord, had also cancelled the Registered Will dated 30.03.2000 executed by her in respect of the suit property in favour of one Vasanthi, which was registered as document No. 111 of 2000 on the file of District Registrar, Vellore and such cancellation was made in the presence of her brother P. Shanmugam and her sister P. Vanaja, as witnesses. According to the plaintiff, though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, inspite of his repeated demands, the defendant failed and neglected to perform her part of the contract by receiving the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in his favour under some pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 05.05.2008 under Certificate of posting expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and also wanted the defendant to intimate the date and time for execution of sale deed in his favour. Whereas, the defendant had sent a notice dated 05.05.2008 through her lawyer, which was received by him on 08.05.2008, admitting the execution of the agreement of sale dated 05.04.2008 and receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance. However, in the said notice dated 05.05.2008, the defendant has made some allegations with ulterior and sinister designs, to alienate the suit property to some third party and called upon the plaintiff to receive back the advance amount from her. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has instituted the suit before the trial court for the following relief’s:-
(a) directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed for a sum of Rs. 22,73,310/- thereby conveying the property more-fully described in the schedule hereunder belonging to her to the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,73,310/- by a decree of specific performance of the contract and in default of which, to have the sale deed executed and registered through the process of Court.
(b) directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the schedule menti
Arunachala Mudaliar v. Jayalakshmi Ammal and another reported in 2003 (1) CTC 355
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.