Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A. Sheik Aaja – Appellant
Versus
Elangovan – Respondents
A.S. No. 345 of 2015
Decided on : 16-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P. Veena Suresh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K.R. Tamizhmani, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the equitable relief of specific performance in a contract for the sale of property, based on the establishment of a valid and concluded contract, the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their part of the contract, and the failure of the appellant/defendant to prove their case.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Contract for Sale of Property - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE] - [CONTRACT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY] - [Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96] - The court discussed the Sale Agreement, readiness and willingness of the parties, and the significance of time as per the terms of the agreement. The court found that the respondent/plaintiff had established a valid and concluded contract with the appellant/defendant and was ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The court also considered the equitable relief of specific performance and found that the respondent/plaintiff had performed their part of the contract in conformity with the terms, while the appellant/defendant failed to prove their case. The court ultimately granted the relief of specific performance in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of a contract to direct the appellant/defendant to execute a registered Sale Deed for the suit schedule properties. The appellant/defendant failed to comply with the terms of the Sale Agreement, leading to the respondent/plaintiff instituting the civil suit for specific performance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent/plaintiff had established a valid and concluded contract with the appellant/defendant and was ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The court also considered the equitable relief of specific performance and found that the respondent/plaintiff had performed their part of the contract in conformity with the terms, while the appellant/defendant failed to prove their case. The court ultimately granted the relief of specific performance in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Issues: The issues framed by the Trial Court included whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance as per the Agreement of Sale, whether the time is the essence of the Agreement of Sale, and to what relief the plaintiff is entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the establishment of a valid and concluded contract, the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their part of the contract, and the consideration of the equitable relief of specific performance. The court found that the respondent/plaintiff had performed their part of the contract in conformity with the terms, while the appellant/defendant failed to prove their case, leading to the grant of the relief of specific performance in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in O.S.No.6 of 2009 stands confirmed and consequently, the appeal suit stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 made in O.S. No.6 of 2009 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.)
1. The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in O.S.No.6 of 2009.
2. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent in the appeal suit.
3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the civil suit for specific performance of contract to direct the appellant/defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as per the Sale Agreement between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/ defendant, after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.9,93,500/- from the respondent/plaintiff as per the Sale Agreement dated 14.01.2007 for a sum of Rs.12,44,500/-.
4. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit by stating that the appellant/defendant is the absolute owner of the suit properties. The appellant/defendant offered to convey the suit properties of 2.62 acres at Rs.4,750/- per cent. The respondent/plaintiff accepted the said offer. In pursuance of the offer and acceptance, a contract of sale between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant were entered into on 14.01.2007.
5. As per the terms of Sale Agreement, the appellant/ defendant is willing to convey all the suit properties comprises for Rs.12,44,500/- to the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff agreed to purchase the said suit properties for the agreed price. The respondent/plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.51,000/- in cash to the appellant/defendant and the said amount was acknowledged in the agreement itself.
6. It is mutually agreed between the parties that the appellant/defendant has to measure the suit properties and be ready to convey the same. The time for execution of sale is recited as 60 days. It was specifically agreed that the time is not essence of contract. The appellant/defendant demand second installment as portion of sale price on 29.01.2007 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant/defendant and the appellant/defendant endorsed the same in the Sale Agreement itself. When the respondent/ plaintiff was willing to pay the balance and get the sale deed executed in her favour and requested the appellant/defendant to perform his part of the contract on 26.03.2007. The appellant/defendant had requested three months time to execute the sale deed and also demanded the respondent/plaintiff to pay the additional sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- had been paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant.
7. The respondent/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and did inform the same to the appellant/ defendant on various occasions. Even at the time of receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 26.03.2007 and making endorsement in the agreement for sale, the appellant/defendant had categorically recorded the said fact also. Despite the fact that the respondent/plaintiff made repeated demands, the appellant/defendant failed to comply with the terms of the Sale Agreement and was going on evading. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff caused a registered notice dated 04.07.2008 through her lawyer to the appellant/defendant, informing her readiness and willingness and requested the appellant/defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and insisted him to perform his part of contract. The appellant/defendant had chosen to cause a false reply and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to institute the civil suit for specific performance.
8. The appellant/defendant, in his written statement, denied the allegations set out in the plaint by stating that the suit itself is vexatious. The appellant/defendant states that the respondent/pla
