Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Ramamoorthi - Appellant
Versus
Rasathi - Respondent
S.A. No. 74 of 2016
Decided On : 18-06-2019
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Ex.A1 - [Specific Performance] - [Section 100 of CPC] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the validity of the sale agreement Ex.A1 and the execution of the General Power of Attorney deed in favor of the plaintiff. The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim for specific performance and the defendant's defense, ultimately finding that the sale agreement was not genuine and the plaintiff did not come forward with clean hands. The court also considered the principles outlined in the decisions reported in (2000) 3 M.L.J. 685 and AIR 1965 MADRAS 147.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance or refund of the sale amount based on a sale agreement. The defendant contested, denying the existence of the sale agreement and claiming a loan transaction with a General Power of Attorney deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale agreement was not genuine, the plaintiff did not come forward with clean hands, and the defendant had executed only the General Power of Attorney deed. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance.
Issues: Validity of the sale agreement, execution of the General Power of Attorney deed, plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance, and alternative relief for refund of the money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the sale agreement was not genuine, the plaintiff did not come forward with clean hands, and the defendant had executed only the General Power of Attorney deed. The court also considered the equitable nature of specific performance and the need for the plaintiff to have clean hands to seek such relief.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2015 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Court, Tiruvarur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mannargudi.)
1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2015 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Court, Tiruvarur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mannargudi.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for specific performance or in the alternative for the refund of the sale amount.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property belongs to the defendant and the defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to the abovesaid transaction and accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement on 27.11.2000 in respect of the sale of the suit property and the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant on the date of the sale agreement and the sale agreement had been attested by the plaintiff's son as well as the other attestors and the defendant had also handed over the possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on the date of the sale agreement and the defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when demanded by the plaintiff and thereafter, though the plaintiff had been insisting the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on several occasions, the defendant had been postponing the same for one reason or the other and left with no other alternative, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 14.03.2002 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property within a particular point of time and despite the receipt of the same, the defendant had failed to come forward and execute the sale deed and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant for appropriate reliefs.
5. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that he had not agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as put forth in the plaint and also contended that no sale agreement had been entered into between the parties on 27.11.2000 for the sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- as put forth in the plaint and the defendant had not parted with the possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on the date of the sale agreement as claimed in the plaint. The defendant had not executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The sale agreement projected by the plaintiff is false and imaginary and the defendant had not received the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the consideration of the sale of the suit property. The suit property still continuous to be in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant and the defendant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.11.2000 and as a security for the same, the plaintiff had obtained a General Power of Attorney deed from the defendant on the said date and at that time, the plaintiff had also obtained the signatures of the defendant in some stamp papers and blank papers and the defendant had discharged the abovesaid loan and demanded the return of the papers, in which, his signatures had been obtained and the plaintiff had assured to return the same, however, failed to return the said documents and the defendant had cancelled the power of attorney by a deed of cancellation on 16.06.2004 and also inf
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
