Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 34
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Kandasamy - Appellant
Versus
M. Chellammal & Others - Respondents
S.A.(MD)No. 1253 of 2006
Decided On : 12-02-2020
For the Appellant :S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel, S. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:K. Sree Kumaran Nair, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Evidence Act and the Specific Relief Act in determining the validity of a contract for the sale of property and the grant of specific performance.
Headnote:
specific performance - contract for sale of property - Evidence Act - Specific Relief Act - [Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure] - [Exs.A.1 to A.5, Ex.B.1] - The judgment discusses the admissibility of evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act and the grant of equitable relief of specific performance of contract. The court analyzes the evidence of the parties, the execution of agreements, and the readiness and willingness to conclude the contract. The court also considers the applicability of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act and the interpretation of the legal provisions in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of property, while the defendant denied the existence of the contract and raised issues regarding the execution of agreements and the payment of sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence and materials supported the plaintiffs' case, and the defendant's contentions were not substantiated. The court rejected the defendant's evidence and upheld the decree for specific performance granted by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence, the execution of agreements, the payment of sale consideration, and the readiness and willingness to conclude the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the parties, the conduct of the defendant, and the interpretation of legal provisions under the Evidence Act and the Specific Relief Act to determine the validity of the contract and the grant of specific performance.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decree for specific performance in favor of the plaintiffs, rejecting the appellant's appeal.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.32 of 2006, dated 30.08.2006, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.174 of 1998, dated 29.11.2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi.)
1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below granting the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs, the present Second Appeal is filed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Muthiahsamy Thalaivar, husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4. The defendant, being the friend of the husband of the first plaintiff, agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. On the date of sale deed, viz., Ex.B.1, dated 27.01.1993, since the defendant was not having funds to pay the sale consideration, he executed an agreement-Ex.A.1 on the same day, stating that he will pay the said sum, within a period of one year. He has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for every crop towards mesne profits. As the defendant was not in a position to pay the sale consideration within the stipulated time, period for payment was periodically extended. The defendant entered into an agreement that if he failed to pay the amount, he will execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Muthiahsamy Thalaivar. On 21.08.1994, he has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the mesne profits. However, he has not paid the sale consideration, as agreed. Muthiahsamy Thalaivar died on 16.09.1997 and immediately, the plaintiffs have sent a legal notice on 25.10.1997, which was not replied by the defendant. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to complete the sale. Hence, the suit to enforce the contract executed by the said Muthiahsamy Thalaivar.
4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that there was no contract executed by him on the same date of the sale. It is contended that the defendant and the said Muthiahsamy Thalaivar were close friends. The allegation that the sale was sham and nominal is also denied. The alleged agreement to pay mesne profits towards the sale consideration is also denied. It is his contention that there was a dispute between Muthiahsamy Thalaivar and his wife. Muthiahsamy Thalaivar, in order to avoid the legal proceedings initiated by the wife in respect of the sale of the property, requested the defendant to put his signature in the contract after one year of the sale deed. According to the defendant, the agreement was not executed on 27.01.1993. As the dispute between the husband and wife is not over by the time, at the request of Muthiahsamy Thalaivar, the defendant put four signatures in blank papers. With the said blank papers, the suit documents have been fabricated few months before the death of Muthiahsamy Thalaivar. Muthiahsamy Thalaivar has informed the defendant that the dispute between the husband and wife is over and he has destroyed all the agreements. Thereafter, after receipt of notice from the plaintiffs, the defendant has informed the same to one Periyagurusamy, who informed the defendant that he would warn the plaintiffs not to take any action. The allegation that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to complete the sale is also denied. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court has framed necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
6. On the basis of the evidence and materials, the Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has also confirmed the same. As
