Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
D. Lakshmi and Others – Appellants
Versus
R. Naresh Kumar – Respondents
A.S. No. 402 of 2014
Decided On : 03-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.N. Sugesh for T.R. Thara.
For the Respondent: K. Rajasekaran.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Rule 1 - Order XLI - Sale deed in his favor – Transaction - However first defendant had not come forward to receive balance sale consideration and execute sale deed and been avoiding same with an ulterior motive - First defendant had lodged complaint falsely against plaintiff before Central Crime Branch Edmore as if plaintiff gave loan of with an exorbitant interest and harassed first defendant for getting money back – Held, Therefore it is seen that only thereafter plaintiff had chosen to institute suit against defendant for reliefs claimed - However as above pointed out when plaintiff has failed to establish truth and validity of sale agreement to and on other hand when facts and circumstance surrounding case go to point out that no such sale agreement had been contemplated and also entered into between parties with reference to sale of suit property and only loan transaction had been entered into between parties concerned and accordingly plaintiff as above noted having not evinced interest to go ahead with accomplishment of sale transaction within reasonable time after execution of alleged sale agreement in all it is found that plaintiffs case cannot be accepted in any manner and trial Court is found to have accepted plaintiffs case merely on footing that first defendant has failed to establish repayment alleged loan amount said to have been borrowed by her from plaintiff - Light of above said discussions court hold that sale agreement is not true valid and binding on defendants – Court hold that plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract assuming sale agreement to be true court further hold that plaintiff is not entitled to obtain relief of specific performance in respect of sale agreement as claimed by him - Court hold that plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed - Court further hold that plaintiff is not entitled to obtain relief of declaration with reference to settlement deed as claimed - Accordingly Point are answered – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Prayer: First Appeal has been filed under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of CPC and Order IV Rule 14 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 passed in O.S. No. 2493 of 2011 on the file of the XVIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai.
1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 passed in O.S. No. 2493 of 2011 on the file of the XVIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, the defendants have preferred the first appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for Specific Performance, Permanent Injunction and Declaration.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the first defendant obtained title to the suit property by way of the sale deed dated 14.06.1976 and the release deed dated 27.06.2001 and agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs. 7,50,000/- and the parties entered into a sale agreement with reference to the same on 12.09.2002 and out of the sale price fixed, the first defendant on the date of the sale agreement received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the parties had agreed that the balance sale consideration should be paid within six months and the sale deed should be executed by the first defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in affluent circumstances and engaged in business and having sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration and accordingly, he had requested the first defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in his favour. However, the first defendant had not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed and been avoiding the same with an ulterior motive. The first defendant had lodged a complaint falsely against the plaintiff before the Central Crime Branch, Egmore as if the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- with an exorbitant interest and harassed the first defendant for getting the money back. The police registered a case against the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained anticipatory bail. In the event of the abovesaid situation, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 02.05.2005 calling upon the first defendant to fix a date for registering the sale deed, after receiving the balance sale consideration. To the same, the first defendant sent a reply on 22.05.2005 containing false allegations and also disputed the execution of the sale agreement itself and put forth the case that the transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant is only a loan transaction and the efforts made by the plaintiff through the mediators to complete the sale ended in vain. While so the plaintiff learnt that the first defendant had executed a settlement deed with reference to the suit property in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 on 18.02.2005, however the same has not been stated in the reply notice with a view to cheat the plaintiff. The abovesaid settlement deed had been effected in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, who are the sons of the first defendant and the abovesaid deed is sham and nominal document and not binding upon the plaintiff and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to levy the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.
5. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that as the first defendant was in need of money to redeem the property mortgaged by her mother and as the property was also brought up for auction, put forth the case that the first defendant's husband borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the first defendant deposited the title deeds of the suit property as a security to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had also tendered only Rs. 4,00,000/- by retaining Rs. 1,00,000/- towards security and the first defendant's husband had paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and the first defendant was
