Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
Rajeswari - Appellant
Versus
T.Kannan – Respondent
A.S.No.466 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.11894 of 2018
Decided On : 11-02-2020
Specific Relief Act – Section 17 – Code of Civil Procedure – Section 96 – Order XLI Rule I – Appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree passed – Defendant is the appellant in the appeal suit and the respondent plaintiff instituted a suit for Specific Performance based on the suit sale agreement – Facts in nutshell as narrated in the plaint are that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and the said property was acquired by her vide a Deed of Settlement registered in Document on the file of SRO, Thondamuthur – Total sale consideration agreed between the parties was, out of which, an advance amount was paid on the date of agreement – Plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration of and he approached the defendant repeatedly for execution of the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration and she was evading her part of the performance –Held, Being the principles to be considered, with reference to the facts of the case on hand, when a valuable property worth about Rs.1 crore is sought to be sold for a meager amount then naturally a doubt would arise that whether the defendant had intended to sell the property or signed for the purpose of creating a security irrespective of other contradictory statements made in order to defend the case – Irrespective of the fact that the parties have pleaded in a different manner, this Court is bound to consider the basic principles regarding the grant of relief of Specific Performance to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, this Court is able to arrive a conclusion that the appellant defendant had not intended to sell the property in favour of the respondent defendant and the suit sale agreement was signed between the parties in lieu of the loan borrowed and as a security – However, the appellant defendants is liable to refund the entire advance amount with interest – Learned counsel for the appellant defendant solicited the attention of this Court regarding Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, wherein a Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable – As far as the present case on hand is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the defendant is not the owner of the entire property mentioned in the plaint and a portion of the property had already been sold by her mother to a third party and therefore, the contract is unenforceable – Appeal suit in A.S. stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Appeals under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.02.2018 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore passed in O.S.No.48 of 2013.)
The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.48 of 2013 dated 08.02.2018.
2. The defendant is the appellant in the appeal suit and the respondent plaintiff instituted a suit for Specific Performance based on the suit sale agreement dated 14.11.2012.
3. The facts in nutshell as narrated in the plaint are that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and the said property was acquired by her vide a Deed of Settlement dated 27.04.2006 registered in Document No.1921 of 2006 on the file of SRO, Thondamuthur. The total sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh only), out of which, an advance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh only) was paid on the date of agreement. The time stipulated for the performance of the agreement was one month. The plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh only) and he approached the defendant repeatedly for execution of the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration and she was evading her part of the performance. In view of the attitude of the defendant, in performing her part of the contract, the plaintiff issued a notice and thereafter instituted the suit for Specific Performance.
4. The defendant disputed the contentions by stating that the plaintiff is a total stranger to her and no such suit sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is contended that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakh only) from one Mr.Selvan, residing at Alamelu Mangai Avenue, Thondamuthur, Coimbatore, who was known to the defendant and who was being money lending business. He agreed to lend a sum and obtained defendant's signature on blank papers and stamp papers and also took the original settlement deed in the name of the defendant as repayment of said loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. The defendant has stated that she had already repaid a sum of Rs.6,75,000/-(Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) out of the borrowed loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Mr.Selvan, with a mala fide intention to grab the suit property, created a false sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and instituted the suit for Specific Performance. It is stated that the suit schedule property is situated in the heart of the city, measuring 9 cents 223 sq. feet and the market value is about Rs.1 crore.
5. It is contended that the defendant would settle the balance loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) along with the interest to Mr.Selvan and Mr.Selvan demanded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakh only) and therefore, the defendant lodged a police complaint on 10.05.2013 before the Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Section, Coimbatore for action against Mr.Selvan and the plaintiff.
6. The trial Court framed the issues, Whether the sale agreement 14.11.2002 is true valid and binding upon the plaintiff; Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance and to what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
7. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and had marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The defendant had examined herself as DW1 besides examining her sister's son Sasikumar as DW2 and one R.Duraisamy as DW3. Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 had been marked on the side of the defendant.
8. With reference to Issue No.1, the trial Court found that the signature in the suit sale agreement (Ex.A1) had not been denied by the defendant. The claim of the defendant is that she signed blank papers and blank stamp papers and handed over the same to one Selvan from whom, she had borrowed loan, had misused the said blank signatures
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
