Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3281
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
S.K.M. Rahima Bivi - Appellant
Versus
R. Mahalingam - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 243 of 2009
Decided On : 24-10-2018
V. Nagendran, Adv., A.R. Sethupathy, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of parties' willingness to perform their obligations and the specific performance of the agreement.
Headnote:
specific performance - agreement of sale - O.S.No.99 of 2007, O.S.No.18 of 2006 - [Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10, Section 16, Section 20] - The court discussed the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly Section 10 (Enforcement of Contracts Specifying Time), Section 16 (Personal bars to relief), and Section 20 (Discretion as to Decreeing Specific Performance). The court emphasized the importance of parties' willingness to perform their obligations and the specific performance of the agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale deed. The defendants, who were the legal heirs of the property owners, had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had paid the advance amount and was ready to pay the balance sale consideration, but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parties had agreed to execute the sale deed, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Consequently, the court granted the relief of specific performance in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance, whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, and whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court should be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was entitled to a decree for specific performance.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed.
R. MAHALINGAM, J.
1. The defendants in O.S.No.99 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, are the appellants herein.
2. O.S.No.99 of 2007 had been originally filed as O.S.No.18 of 2006 in the Subordinate Court, Dindigul and it was then transferred to the District Court, Dindigul, and renumbered as O.S.No.99 of 2007. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 12.01.2009. Challenging the said judgment, the defendants had filed the present first appeal.
O.S.No.99 of 2007 (Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Dindigul) O.S.No.18 of 2006 (Subordinate Court, Dindigul):-
3. This suit had been filed by R.Mahalingam, against 8 defendants. The 2nd to 8th defendants were represented by their power of attorney agent, the first defendant. The 1st to 4th defendants were the legal heir of S.K.M. Mohammed Sulthan Ravuthar and the 5th to 8th defendants were the legal heir of the T.A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim Ravuthar. The suit had been filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale deed dated 27.06.2005 executed by the 1st defendant on her behalf and on behalf of the 2nd to 8th defendants in her capacity as their power of attorney on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,37,500/- and on failure, for the Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and also for costs of the suit.
4. The suit property was land and building in D.No.30/63-A, Katcheri Street, Dindigul Town, Ward No.1, Dindigul, measuring 315 sq. ft., including electricity connection and other appurtenants. According the plaintiff, the suit property was originally owned by the father of the 1st and 4th defendants, S.K.M. Mohammed Sulthan Ravuthar and by the father of the 5th to 8th defendants, T.A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim Ravuthar. They had purchased the property, by sale deed, dated 25.08.1970. S.K.M. Mohammed Sulthan Ravuthar died in 1997 and his wife Ayisha Gani died in 1999 leaving behind the 1st to 4th defendants as their legal heirs. T.A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim Ravuthar died in 1993 and leaving behind the 5th to 8th defendants as his legal heirs. Consequently, the suit property was owned by the 1st to 8th defendants. It had been further stated that the 2nd to 8th defendants had given a general power of attorney, dated 19.12.2001, with respect to the suit property. In the power of attorney, the first defendant was granted authority to sell the property.
5. The first defendant on the strength of the power of attorney, entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 27.06.2005 with respect to the suit property for total sale consideration of Rs. 2,62,500/-. An advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also received by the first defendant. Among the terms of the agreement one was that the sale deed should be executed within a period of six months. It had been stated that the first defendant had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by cash towards further advance on 30.06.2005 and a further advance of Rs. 10,000/- by cheque on 09.09.2005 and a further advance of Rs. 10,000/- by cash on 03.12.2005. These had been acknowledged by the first defendant in a note book. It had been stated that the first defendant had received a total advance of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the balance consideration was Rs. 1,37,500/-. It had been stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and obtain sale deed from the first defendant.
6. The plaintiff called upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff had also purchased the required stamp papers for registration purpose on 15.09.2005. The plaintiff had issued a notice dated 22.12.2005 to the 1st defendant calling upon her to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. The 1st defendant sent a reply on 24.12.2005. In the said reply, the additional advance of Rs. 25,000/-, which had been received on 30.06.2005, 09.09.2005 and 03.12.2005 in parts had not been mentioned. It was further mentioned that the 1st defendant was prepared to execute sal
