Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Ramakrishnappa (Died) and Others – Appellants
Versus
P.S. Suguna – Respondent
S.A. No. 144 of 1996
Decided On : 24-11-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.V. Krishnan.
Readiness and willingness for specific performance are inferential facts, manifesting from the conduct of the parties, and must be demonstrated clearly and consistently.
Headnote:
specific performance - agreement for re-conveyance - Civil Procedure Code Section 100 - 23.09.1976 - 29.04.1993 - O.S. No. 323/80 - A.S. No. 69 of 1994 - District Judge, Krishnagiri - District Munsif Court, Hosur
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 23.09.1976, seeking re-conveyance of a property sold to the defendant. The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to enforce the re-conveyance agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the specified time or thereafter. The plaintiff's contradictory statements, admission of financial duress, and sale of property just before filing the suit undermined his claim for specific performance.
Issues: The issues included the circumstances of the sale, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to enforce the re-conveyance agreement, entitlement to specific performance, and other reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that readiness and willingness are inferential facts, manifesting from the conduct of the parties. Filing the suit within the prescribed time and pleading readiness and willingness were deemed insufficient in the absence of offering to deposit the sale price and contradictory evidence.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was deemed not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1995 in A.S. No. 69 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 323/80, dated 29.04.1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur.
1. The suit filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 23.09.1976 was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. Against the concurrent finding, the present Second Appeal is filed.
2. The suit filed on the premise that the plaintiff for his urgent need borrowed money from one P. Nagaraju, who is the husband of the defendant. Since Nagaraju insisted to execute a sale deed in the name of his wife for the loan with an understanding that the property will be re-conveyed on payment of Rs. 3,100/- after 3 years but before end of the 4th year from the date of sale. The plaintiff executed sale deed on 23.09.1976 in respect of the suit property for consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and the defendant executed the deed of re-conveyance for a sale price of Rs. 3,100/-. The property was delivered to the defendant as per the recital of the sale deed. As per the agreement, the right to seek re-conveyance commenced on 23.09.1979 on the end of third year. The plaintiff sought for re-conveyance on 01.09.1980. The defendant and her husband avoided the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay Rs. 3,100/- and get back his property, the defendant was not ready. Suit filed without issuing pre-suit notice since the limitation fast approaching.
3. The defendant denied the averments found in the plaint and contested the suit on the premise that, the sale deed was executed not as an accommodation for the loan transaction as alleged. The plaintiff expressed his offer to sell the suit land to discharge his existing debt. He expressed his desire to get back his property if he is able to repay the amount, after three years and within 4 years. The defendant agreed to that and purchased the property on payment of full consideration and took possession. At request of the plaintiff, re-conveyance agreement was also executed for sale consideration fixed at Rs. 3,100/-. The time for re-conveyance was fixed between 3rd and 4th year, when there is no crop on the land. The plaintiff never offered the consideration and sought for re-conveyance. At no point of time he was ready and willing to get back the property, after paying the consideration fixed. If he really had money within the period fixed, he would have expressly offered the same and proved his ready and willingness. He could have issued notice before the time prescribed. Filing the suit, without expressing his readiness only indicates that the suit filed not with bona-fide intention. The plaintiff has not even offered to deposit the sale consideration pending suit. The agreement for re-conveyance is an unilateral document, not signed by the plaintiff. It is not an agreement executed mutually. The plaintiff, who is not party to the contract, is not entitled to seek for enforcement of the contract.
4. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the suit property was sold to the defendant in the circumstances stated in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to enforce the re-conveyance agreement, if not whether the suit is maintainable?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance?
4. What other relief the parties are entitled?
5. The plaintiff and one Govinda Gowda was examined as PW-1 and PW-2. The re-conveyance agreement dated 23.09.1976 marked as Ex.A-1. The defendant was examined as DW-1. The sale deed of the suit property dated 23.09.1976, the sale deed executed by the defendant to Sekar and Munirathinamma on 08.09.1980 and the kist receipts for the suit property, were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3 respectively.
6. The trial
