Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
V. Annamalai - Appellant
Versus
J. Balasundaram - Respondent
S.A. No. 172 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 3505 of 2016
Decided On : 13-09-2019
For the Appellant :A. Tamilvanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Giridharan, Advocate.
The plaintiff must establish the validity of the sale agreement and demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract in a suit for specific performance.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Suit for specific performance - [Civil Procedure Code, Section 100] - [Evidence Act, Section 3, Section 101, Section 102, Section 103, Section 114] - The court discussed the validity of the sale agreement, the burden of proof, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the truth and validity of the sale agreement and lacked readiness and willingness to complete the sale transaction, leading to the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, claiming that the defendant agreed to sell a property to him and received an advance payment. The defendant disputed the existence of the sale agreement and claimed the amount received was a loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the validity of the sale agreement and lacked readiness and willingness to complete the sale transaction, leading to the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
Issues: Validity of the sale agreement, burden of proof, plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff failed to establish the truth and validity of the sale agreement and lacked readiness and willingness to complete the sale transaction, leading to the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014, passed by the Principal District Judge at Puducherry in A.S.No.2/2014 reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2013, passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.57/2008.)
1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014, passed in A.S.No.2/2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2013, passed in O.S.No.57/2008, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Puducherry.
2. Suit for specific performance.
3. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the defendant, in order to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, entered into a sale agreement in connection with the same on 07.03.2005 and the sale price was fixed at Rs.1,08,100/- and the defendant received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff as advance on the date of the sale agreement and agreed to receive the balance sum of Rs.68,100/- at the time of the execution of the sale deed and further, agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by producing all the original documents related to the suit property within 3 months. The defendant received a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 23.05.2005 and Rs.50,000 on 14.07.2005 and made an endorsement on the back side of the sale agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendant on many occasions and requested to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.16,100. But the defendant had been dragging on the matter endlessly and therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 06.02.2008 and to the same, the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
4. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the sale agreement dated 07.03.2005 projected by the plaintiff is a fabricated record with a view to grab the property belonging to the defendant. The defendant received a sum of Rs.40,000/- as loan only from the plaintiff on 07.03.2005 by executing a promissory note and the defendant received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff by depositing his property document and by executing a promissory note as security on the plaintiff's demand on 23.05.2005 and the defendant so far had paid a sum of Rs.3,500/- as interest to the principal amount of Rs.42,000/- on 14.07.2005 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the defendant on 20.01.2008 for repaying the loan amount of Rs.42,000/- with exorbitant interest, but the defendant refused to pay the interest claimed by the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff had filed the suit falsely using the promissory note signed by the defendant by filling up the same. On verification of the case records, the defendant came to understand that the plaintiff had used his signature signed on the non judicial papers obtained at the time of the availment of loan from the plaintiff and hence, the sale agreement is a fabricated record and the defendant never executed any such agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff to sell the suit property and never made any endorsement on the reverse side of the sale agreement and not received a sum of Rs.92,000/- from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and he had availed only a loan of Rs.42,000/- from the plaintiff by executing promissory notes and depositing the property document and furthermore, the defendant is not the owner of the second item of the property mentioned in the C schedule and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DWs1 to 4 were examined, no document has been marked.
6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.
