Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
G. Kandasamy & Others - Appellant
Versus
Jagadeswari & Others - Respondent
A.S. Nos. 271 to 274 of 2016, Rev. Appl. Nos. 2 to 5 of 2018 & C.M.P. Nos. 4708 to 4710, 4721 to 4726, 4751, 4752 & 4763 of 2016
Decided On : 26-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :G.K.R. Pandian, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.K. Kumarasamy, Senior Counsel, V. Nicholas, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 41 r/w 96 - Rule 2 - Registration Act 1908 - Section 17 (1A) and 49 - Stamp Act - Section 35 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53 A - Suit schedule properties - Sale agreements - Possession - Sale deeds - Appellants in respective suits have alleged that sale agreements all dated all marked as Ex.A1 in respective suits were signed between appellants and respondents - Recitals in agreement, respective respondents have acknowledged having received advance from appellants for selling suit schedule properties which are lands - In plaint it was further averred that respondents had transferred possession of land to appellants/plaintiffs - Appellants/plaintiffs have averred that they have spent an amount of Rs.7 lakh towards improvement of suit schedule properties for laying plots and roads for sale to prospective buyers/investors - Before filing above suits, appellants had also issued legal notice to the respondents/defendants which were not answered - Appellants that respective respondents/defendants had entered into respective Exhibit A1 sale agreement dated all wherein respective respondents/defendants have acknowledged having received advance amounts from appellants/plaintiffs and had transferred possession of land to appellants/plaintiffs – Held, investment has not yielded the desired to result due to non cooperation of respondents which incidentally came to their rescue in form of Section 17-(1A) of Registration Act, 1908 and in form of Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in view of stand of appellants that they had been put to possession - Therefore, to balance scales of justice and to mitigate the loss suffered by appellants/plaintiffs , Court are inclined to direct respondents/defendants to jointly and severally refund amount of Rs.25 lakhs paid as advance as per recitals in the respective Exhibits A1 in the respective suit together with another sum compensation to appellants/plaintiffs calculated at 7.5% per annum - Event of failure of the respondents/defendants deposit amount within such period, appellants/plaintiffs are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to execute this Order - Respective respondents/defendants shall also pay at 7.5% on aforesaid amounts in event of delay - Appellants/plaintiffs are also entitled to withdraw amount already deposited by them together with interest accrued thereon - All Appeal Suits are partly allowed as above - Consequently, all Review Applications are closed and all connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
C. SARAVANAN, J.
(Common Prayer: Appeal Suits are filed under Order 41 r/w 96 of CPC, to set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiruppur on 27.11.2015 in O.S.Nos.297, 64, 293 & 295 of 2006.)
1. The present Appeal is directed against separate judgments and decrees all dated 27.11.2015 in O.S.Nos. 64, 293, 295 & 297 of 2006 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur.
2. The appellants have also filed review applications to review the orders dated 28.08.2017 in C.M.P.Nos.10469, 10470, 10471 & 10472 of 2017 in A.S.Nos.271, 272, 273 & 274 of 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
3. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the above suits. The respective respondents in were the respective defendants in the respective suits.
4. The Trial Court dismissed O.S.Nos. 293, 295 & 297 of 2006. In O.S.No.64 of 2006 alone, the Trial Court has ordered refund of Rs.5 lakhs to the appellants.
5. Aggrieved by the respective judgment and decrees in the respective suit, the these four appeal have been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.
6. We are disposing all the four appeals as the facts are intertwined in all the cases and arise in the same factual background. Respective respondents/defendants are members of the same family.
7. The above suits were filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the respective respondents/defendants for a specific performance of contract under four different agreements all dated 15.4.2005. Respective agreements were marked as Ex.A1 in the respective suits.
8. The appellants in the respective suits have alleged that sale agreements all dated 15.4.2005 all marked as Ex.A1 in the respective suits were signed between the appellants and the respondents.
9. As per the recitals in the agreement, the respective respondents have acknowledged having received advance from the appellants for selling the suit schedule properties which are lands. In the plaint it was further averred that the respondents had transferred possession of the land to the appellants/plaintiffs.
10. Details of the amounts allegedly paid under the respective sale agreements marked as Ex.A-1 in the respective suits are as follows:-
A.S.Nos
O.S.Nos
Date of Agreement
Name of the vendor (Defendant)
Total consideration
Advance as per the Agreement
271 of 2016
O.S.No.297 of 2006
15.04.2005
Jegatheeswari (Daughter)
Rs.16,50,000/-
Rs.5,00,000/-
272 of 2016
O.S.No.64 of 2006
15.04.2005
R.Kaliappan (Father)
Rs.16,50,000/-
Rs.5,00,000/-
273 of 2016
O.S.No.293 of 2006
15.04.2005
Rajammal (Mother)
Rs.49,50,000/-
Rs.10,00,000/-
274 of 2016
O.S.No.295 of 2006
15.04.2005
Mohan Kumar (Son)
Rs.16,50,000/-
Rs.5,00,000/-
11. In the respective plaints, the appellants/plaintiffs have averred that they have spent an amount of Rs.7 lakh towards improvement of the suit schedule properties for laying plots and roads for sale to the prospective buyers/investors. Before filing the above suits, the appellants had also issued legal notice to the respondents/defendants which were not answered.
12. In the written statements all respondents except the respondent in A.S No.272 of 2016 (the defendant in O.S 64 of 2006) have denied having either signed the above agreement or having received the advance as per the agreement.
13. They have also denied that the Appellants were put in possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, they have also denied that the appellants/plaintiffs would have spent money for developing the plots. They have therefore refused to execute sale deeds.
14. In Para 7 of the respective Judgments the defence of the respondent has been narrated.
15. It is the case of the appellants that the respective respondents/defendants had entered into respective Exhibit A1 sale agreement dated all 15.
