Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
A.K.Subbian (died) and Ors - Appellants
Versus
S.S.Subbaian - Respondent
S.A. Nos. 1330 of 2004 & 226 of 2005
Decided on : 18-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. J.Venkatachalapathy for Mr.S.Kadarkarai
Failure to establish the authenticity of the sale agreement, lawfulness of possession, and readiness and willingness to purchase the property led to the dismissal of the appeals.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Ex.A1 - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 53-A] - The court discussed the authenticity of the sale agreement Ex.A1, the possession of the suit property, and the entitlement of specific performance. The court found that the appellant failed to establish the veracity of the sale agreement, the lawfulness of his possession, and readiness and willingness to purchase the property, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement while the respondent sought declaration of title and possession of the suit property. The courts below accepted the respondent's case, leading to the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish the authenticity of the sale agreement, the lawfulness of his possession, and readiness and willingness to purchase the property, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Issues: Authenticity of sale agreement, lawfulness of possession, entitlement to specific performance
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to establish the authenticity of the sale agreement, lawfulness of possession, and readiness and willingness to purchase the property led to the dismissal of the appeals.
Final Decision: Both the second appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
1. Second appeal No.1330 of 2004 has been preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.151 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.811 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam.
2. Second appeal No.226 of 2005 has been preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2003 passed in A.S.No. 152 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.854 of 1995 respectively on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam.
3. Second appeal No.1330 of 2004 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
“(1). Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated for having failed to decree the suit though the appellant / plaintiff had proved the execution of the sale agreement dated 20.01.1995 through PW.2?
(2). Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated for having not considered the defence put forth by the appellant in his written statement in O.S.No.854 of 1995 which substantiate his case in O.S.No.811 of 1995?
4. Second appeal No.226 of 2005 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
“(1). Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are vitiated for having failed to consider the entire evidence on record and to apply the correct principles of law?
(2). Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated for having decreed the suit for recovery of possession when the appellant has established that he was put in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement of sale?
(3). Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated for having accepted the mere denial of the respondent about the sale agreement without accepting evidence of the independent plaintiff witness?”
5. Considering the scope of issues involved in the matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.
6. Suffice to state that O.S.No.811 of 1995 has been preferred by the appellant seeking the relief of specific performance in respect of the suit property on the basis of the sale agreement dated 20.01.1995 marked as Ex.A1. The respondent has preferred O.S.No.854 of 1995 in respect of the suit property seeking for declaration of his title to the same and also alleging that the appellant, on the strength of the injunction order obtained in O.S.No.811 of 1995, had unlawfully trespassed into the suit property, accordingly sought for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellant.
7. On the basis of the materials placed on record, the Courts below had accepted the case of the respondent and rejected the case of the appellant and aggrieved over the same, the present second appeals have come to be preferred by the appellant.
8. Pending the appeals, the appellant having died, his LRs had been brought on record.
9. As abovenoted, as regards the suit property, as per the case of the appellant, the respondent had agreed to sell the same in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.9,000/- and it is stated that with reference to the said arrangement, the parties had entered into a sale agreement on 20.01.1995, whereunder, according to the appellant, he had parted a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent and agreed to pay the balance amount within one month from the date of the sale agreement and complete the sale transaction and inasmuch as the respondent had refused to comply with his part of the sale agreement and execute the sale deed, it is the case of the appellant that he had been necessitated to lay the suit for specific performance.
10. The respondent has laid the suit for declaration and possession disputing the alleged sale agreement put forth by the appellant and according to the respondent, the abovesaid sale agreement is a forged document and by way of
