Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
M/s. Chandan Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Others – Appellants
Versus
R.K. Jalan and Others – Respondents
A.S. No. 858 of 2006 & M.P. Nos. 2 of 2006 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 15-02-2018
For the Appellant : T. Viswanatha Rao.
For the Respondent: V.T. Gopalan for G. Krishna Kumar.
Headnote:
Indian Partnership Act 1932 – Section 14 – Specific Performance – Recovery of possession – Respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit before the Original Side of this Court and the same was numbered as C.S. – Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the Additional District and Sessions court, Fast Track Court-1, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S. – Defendants are the appellants and the respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit. – Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. for specific performance and for recovery of possession in respect of Plots D, E & F. – Held, Present suit was filed numbered as C.S. before the Original Side of this Court – Since the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs within 3 years from the date of refusal, the suit is not barred by limitation. – The plaintiffs have proved the Oral Agreement by adducing oral and documentary evidences. – The plaintiffs have also established that the Sale Consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/- was paid to the defendants. – The plaintiffs have also proved that they are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and it was only the defendants, who were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. – Taking into consideration all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. – There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, since the facts and circumstances are different, they are not applicable to the present case – Court do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. – Appeal Dismissed.
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 6686 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions court, Fast Track Court-1, Chennai.
2. Originally, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit before the Original Side of this Court and the same was numbered as C.S. No. 644 of 1990. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the Additional District and Sessions court, Fast Track Court-1, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S. No. 6686 of 1996.
3. The defendants are the appellants and the respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit.
4. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 6686 of 1996 for specific performance and for recovery of possession in respect of Plots D, E & F.
5. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:
(i) According to the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant have been friends for some years and having regard to the status of the 1st defendant as a well known person, the 1st plaintiff had implicit confidence and trust in him.
(ii) The 1st defendant had died during the pendency of the suit and his wife was brought on record as the 9th defendant in the suit. Therefore, the defendants 3 & 4 are the sons, the defendants 5 to 8 are the daughters and the 9th defendant is the wife of the deceased 1st defendant.
(iii) The 2nd defendant is the Partnership Concern, of which the defendants 3 to 8 are the partners under the Partnership Deed dated 07.11.1980 and the 1st defendant has been described as Secretary.
(iv) With the idea to start new Industries and Companies, the 1st plaintiff purchased 3 Plots for his Companies from the defendants 1, 3 & 4 under 3 Sale Deeds dated 22.06.1981. The Plots purchased by the 1st plaintiff for his Firm and Companies are shown as A, B, & C in the plan filed along with the plaint, which are adjacent and facing Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai. In those 3 sales, the 1st plaintiff did not experience any difficulty with the defendants 1, 3 & 4. Again in November 1981, the 1st defendant represented to the 1st plaintiff that he and his family group got more vacant sites adjacent to the Plots purchased by the 1st plaintiff for his Firm and Companies under the Sale Deed dated 22.06.1981 and they are willing to sell the same.
(v) The 1st defendant also represented that he has got order in E.P. No. 38 of 1978 in C.S. No. 49 of 1970 on the file of the High Court of Madras to purchase the lands of an extent of 21 grounds in Adyar Village, Guindy, Chennai, which are also adjacent lands and is willing to sell the same by nominating the 1st plaintiff and or his nominees as purchasers. It was further represented that the 1st defendant and his family group will give right of passage through 30 Feet road from Mount Road to the lands, which are the subject matter of E.P. No. 38 of 1978 and for right of the passage, the 1st plaintiff had to file a separate suit for specific performance because the 1st defendant, having received the entire Sale Consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- failed to do his part of obligation.
(vi) Originally, an extent of 33 grounds and 950 sq. ft. in S. No. 24 of T.S. No. 24/2 of Block No. 8 of Adyar Village, situated in Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 15, belonged to the family of Manali Ramakrishnan and others. Their right have been confirmed in C.S. No. 37 of 1947.
(vii) By a Sale Deed dated 25.02.1960, the said land was purchased by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant represented to the 1st plaintiff that after the purchase of the said property by the 1st defendant, he and his family members divided and partitioned their properties, including the said lands and confirmed the same by the Memorandum of Family Settlement and Partition dated 15.02.1975. The 1st defendant also represented to the 1st plaintiff that as per the partition which took place on 15.02.1975, the said lands measuring 33 grounds and 950 sq. ft. were divided as Plots A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H, providing 30 feet common road as per the plan annexed
