Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2036
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
K. Murali & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
D. Anbarasi Packiaraj - Respondent
Appeal Suit (MD) No.54 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 and C.M.P.(MD) No.9443 of 2016
Decided On : 07-09-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. V. Janakiramulu.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for Mrs. S. Srimathi.
The burden of proof lies on the party making a claim, and admitted facts need not be proved. Insufficient evidence can lead to the dismissal of the claim.
Headnote:
Sale Agreement - Recovery of Money - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - The court discussed the sale agreement, the receipt of money, breach of contract, and the adjustment of advance amount towards sale consideration. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the defendants to establish the adjustment of the advance amount and highlighted the principle that admitted facts need not be proved. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the defendants to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent entered into a sale agreement with the appellants for the purchase of properties. Despite the respondent's readiness to perform her part of the contract, the appellants did not proceed with the sale, leading to a legal dispute over the recovery of the advance amount paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to prove the adjustment of the advance amount towards sale consideration for the properties. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree for recovery of the money.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent is entitled to the decree as prayed for? (ii) Whether the suit claim/advance amount paid was adjusted towards sale consideration in favor of Krishnamoorthi, Srinivasan, and Chandra is correct or not?
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies on the defendants to establish the adjustment of the advance amount towards sale consideration. Admitted facts need not be proved, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can lead to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree for recovery of the money was confirmed.
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
The defendants 1 to 3 who suffered a decree for recovery of money preferred the above appeal.
2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 24.10.1999. As per the agreement, 9 items of the properties mentioned were agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per cent. The plaintiff/respondent claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards sale consideration as advance which was acknowledged under the said agreement itself. Though the respondent/plaintiff agreed to complete the sale by paying the balance sale consideration, the appellants/defendants were evading by not producing parent deeds. Despite the efforts of the respondent/plaintiff being ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the appellants/defendants did not come forward to take the sale consideration and execute the sale deed.
3. It was further stated that the defendants were trying to alienate the agreement mentioned properties to third parties constraining the respondent/plaintiff to file the suit in O.S.No.414 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai for injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from alienating the properties. Despite filing of the suit, the appellants/defendants had sold the properties covered under the sale agreement to third parties. As there is breach of contract, the respondent/plaintiff rescinded the contract and issued legal notice demanding a sum of Rs.25 lakhs with interest paid as sale advance. The second appellant/defendant received the notice but did not choose to reply. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.28,66,660/-.
4. The suit was resisted by the second appellant/second defendant contending inter alia that the amount claimed in the suit is not refundable. The second appellant/second defendant admitted the execution of the agreement of sale and also the rate prescribed therein, however, denied the receipt of the amounts as mentioned in the sale agreement. The respondent/plaintiff got the sale deeds from the appellants/defendants in the names of Srinivasan, Chandra and one Krishnamoorthy and the sale consideration for the above three sale transactions were paid and adjusted with the amount paid as advance. Having adjusted the advance amount paid for sale consideration for executing the sale deeds in favour of the above said persons, it is the case of the second appellant/second defendant that no money is repayable to the respondent/plaintiff.
5. The first appellant/first defendant also had filed additional written statement wherein it is stated that even as per the agreement, the sale has to be executed in favour of either the respondent/plaintiff or her nominees. Accordingly, one Srinivasan, who is the friend of the plaintiff's husband had taken the sale in his favour. It is also stated that the said Srinivasan was one of the partners of the plaintiff's husband in his business. As the purchase amount was huge and the respondent/plaintiff could not mobilise the said sum, hence, on her request, the properties were sold in favour of Srinivasan, Chandra and one Krishnamoorthi as her nominees. In fact, the sale consideration for the said sale exceeded Rs.25 lakhs and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff paid Rs.90,000/- by way of cheque. The respondent/plaintiff knowing all the above details had deliberately filed the suit for injunction. The suit claim having been adjusted for the sale consideration as referred above, the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled for decree as prayed for and hence, the appellants/defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. Before the trial Court, only one witness was examined as PW1 and four documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4 on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants 1 to 3, D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined and fifteen documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B15.
7. After elaborate consideration of the above documents and evidence, the trial Cou
