2021 Supreme(Mad) 184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Arokkiyaraj & Others - Appellants
Versus
A. Arokkoyaraj - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 194 of 2013
Decided On : 18-03-2021

Point of law: Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale Specific Performance - If any transfer subsequent to sale agreement is not for consideration and not done in good faith, then, there is no necessity to declare the document as null and void, except impleading the transferees, who are the minor children of the first defendant. These two documents not executed in good faith and certainly not for consideration

Headnote:

Indian Registration Act, 1908 – Specific Relief Act 1963 – Sections 19, 31 – Specific Performance – Appeal is filed by the defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against them in the suit filed for Specific Performance and Mesne Profits – Trial Court, on considering the pleadings and evidence granted the relief of Specific Performance but dismissed the prayer for Mesne Profits – Plaint schedule property owned by the first defendant Arokkiyaraj, S/o Anthonisamy Udaiyar. – He entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff Arokkiyaraj, S/o Amburose Udaiyar. – The sale consideration of the suit property was fixed as Rs.10,67,500/- and an advance of Rs.1,55,000/- was paid on the date of sale agreement. – The purchaser/plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,12,500/- within the period of six months from the date of sale agreement. – The purchaser/plaintiff, when requested the vendor/first defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, the first defendant started evading. – Hence, after issuing pre-suit notice suit was filed filed for Specific Performance of the agreement and mesne profits

Findings of Court:

Plaintiff has expressed his ready and willing in the pre-suit notice and the plaintiff has also come forward to deposit the money in the Court by filing the lodgement schedule. – The plaintiff himself admits in his plaint that the plaintiff is an employee in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Foreman and his wife is a Police Constable. – The witnesses examined in support of his defence admit that the plaintiff has sufficient means. – The fair admission of the plaintiff that on the date of agreement, he did not have sufficient money, does not mean that he was not ready and willing to complete the contract, within six months period mentioned in the agreement. – By his conduct, the plaintiff has established that he had money to complete the contract. – Therefore, the trial Court finding regarding the readiness and willingness is also based on evidence, proved beyond doubt and the same is confirmed. – Last point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that without declaration of two sale deeds Ex.B6 and Ex.B7, the suit for specific performance of contract is not enforceable. – If any transfer subsequent to sale agreement is not for consideration and not done in good faith, then, there is no necessity to declare the document as null and void, except impleading the transferees, who are the minor children of the first defendant. – These two documents not executed in good faith and certainly not for consideration – Hence, prayer to declare these two documents as valid is not required. – Under Ex.B6, five items of the suit schedule property has been settled in favour of the second defendant and under Ex.B7, four items of the suit schedule property has been settled in favour of the third defendant. – According to these two sale deeds, the value of the property under these two sale deeds are Rs.1,60,200/- and Rs.2,17,000/- respectively 13 item have been shown under the sale agreement. – Nine items have been transferred under Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 for total value of Rs.3,77,200/-. – According to the sale agreement, the total value of 13 items of property to an extent of 7 acres 22 3/4 cents is Rs.10,67,500/-. – Therefore, the plea that the value of the property shown under the sale agreement is under value, also belied through the defendants own document. – Hence, the case of the appellants/defendants that Ex.A1 was not executed with intention to sell the property is false. Contrarily the plaintiff/respondent has proved the execution of the document by examining the scribe and advancing of Rs.1,55,000/- is admitted by the first defendant. – For the first time, after the suit, the plea that the said money was received by him only as a loan has been projected which has not been supported by evidence. – Court holds that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is based on proven facts and it has to be upheld.

Result: Appeal Dismissed