Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 35
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of agreements, the assessment of suspicious circumstances, and the application of the Specific Relief Act in determining the entitlement to specific performance.
Headnote:
specific performance - contract for sale of property - Evidence Act - Specific Relief Act - [Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - [Exs.A.1 to A.5, Ex.B.1] - The court discussed the admissibility of the agreements and the evidence of the scribe and attesting witness. It also considered the suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreements and the readiness and willingness of the parties to conclude the contract. The court analyzed the evidence, including the conduct of the parties, and the applicability of the Specific Relief Act, and concluded that the decree for specific performance was justified.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of property based on agreements (Exs.A.1 to A.5) entered between the parties. The defendant contested the existence of the contract and the admissibility of the agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the plaintiffs' case and the agreements were admissible. It also concluded that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreements and the conduct of the parties favored the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance.
Issues: Admissibility of agreements, evidence of scribe and attesting witness, suspicious circumstances, readiness and willingness of the parties, applicability of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence, conduct of the parties, and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act to determine the admissibility of the agreements and the entitlement to 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
