Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Parimala – Appellant
Versus
Jaya – Respondent
S.A. No. 251 of 2010
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Sale Agreement - Sale Consideration - Pre-suit Notice - Suit for specific performance - Case of plaintiff is that she entered into a sale agreement with defendant for a sale consideration - On the same day of sale agreement itself he paid an advance amount and agreed to pay remaining sale amount within three months - Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay remaining sale amount, and to get sale deed registered. Subsequent to sale agreement, defendant received a part sale consideration for a sum in first week of Tamil Month of Chithirai, to meet out his urgent expenses - Plaintiff was always ready to pay balance sale consideration also and called upon defendant to receive balance sale consideration and executed the sale deed; but the defendant did not come forward to get the balance sale amount and execute sale deed
Finding of the court: Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and that has been admitted by the defendant himself in his evidence - Allegation of the defendant itself is that the plaintiff has encroached suit property after purchasing the property in Ex.A12 sale deed. When the legality of the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property itself is challenged, submission of Appellant/plaintiff that his possession over suit property would prove geniuses cannot be accepted - Even sale agreement, it is not mentioned that the plaintiff had been put in the possession in pursuance of the sale agreement - It was neither pleadings of plaintiff in her plaint - Patent differences of the signatures of the defendant as found in Ex.A1 itself will render it doubtful and unreliable - Allegations were not supported by any documents, much less with the copies of the docket orders of the case. Since allegations as to the integrity of the learned First Appellate Judge had been made, this court got it clarified from the concerned Section. From the information so received, it is noted that there was no material on this - I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the appreciation of facts and evidence and the findings rendered by the courts below and hence I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court - Thus the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant
Result: Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree of the subordinate Judge’s Court at Dharmapuri dated 23.04.2009 in A.S.No.52 of 2009 confirming the judgement and decree of the District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri, dated 06.03.2006 in O.S.No.163 of 2004.)
1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the subordinate Judge’s Court at Dharmapuri dated 23.04.2009 in A.S.No.52 of 2009 confirming the judgement and decree of the District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri, dated 06.03.2006 in O.S.No.163 of 2004.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff.
3. The short facts of the case of the plaintiff is that she entered into a sale agreement with the defendant on 07.02.2001 for a sale consideration of Rs.73,500/- (Rs.24,500/-per cent X 3 cents). On the same day of sale agreement itself he paid an advance amount of Rs.20,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining sale amount within the three months. The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale amount, and to get the sale deed registered. Subsequent to the sale agreement, the defendant received a part sale consideration for a sum of Rs. 37,500/- in the first week of Tamil Month of Chithirai, to meet out his urgent expenses. The plaintiff was always ready to pay the balance sale consideration also and called upon the defendant on 05.05.2001 to receive the balance sale consideration and executed the sale deed; but the defendant did not come forward to get the balance sale amount and execute the sale deed. The plaintiff sent notices to the defendant on 22.05.2003 and 19.05.2003. But the defendant avoided to receive the notices. Again the plaintiff sent pre-suit notice on 14.07.2003 and the same was received by the defendant on 18.07.2003, whereas the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance.
4. The short facts of the written statement is as under:
The allegation that the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendant on 07.02.2001, is false. The defendant did not receive any sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff came forward to purchase 0.03cents out of 0.058 hectares in Natham survey No.655/A1/A. The said 0.03 cents is situated on the Northern side of the Pennakaram salai and the South-Western side of the remaining lands of the defendant and Eastern side of the lands Balaji. As agreed, the defendant has executed a sale agreement on 25.01.1999 in favour of the plaintiff’s husband in respect of the above said property. At that time the plaintiff has entered into a sale agreement with one Jayaram to sell the adjacent property.
5. In pursuance of the sale agreement dated 25.01.1999 the defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s husband/Appunu on 29.09.1999. Subsequent to the Sale Deed, the plaintiff encroached the adjacent site of the defendant’s property and erected a construction. So the defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.75/2003 to remove the said construction. The plaintiff and her husband have assaulted the defendant by claiming that there is a pathway in the lands belonging to the defendant. So the defendant has given a police complaint also. Further the plaintiff’s husband filed a suit in O.S.NO.95/2003 by claiming that he has a pathway right in the lands of the defendant. The plaintiff and her husband continued to give troubles to the defendant with some ulterior motive; the defendant concocted a sale agreement by making use of papers given to him while entering the sale agreement. The defendant did not enter in to any sale agreement and receive any sale consideration. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Since the plaintiff made a false claim on the basis of the concocted document, the defendant did not choose to send any reply.
6. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff 4 witnesses were examined and Exs. A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendant 1 witness was examined as DW.1
SupremeToday
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
