Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Chandrasekharan, J.
N.Munisamy - Appellant
Vs.
V.Mohana - Respondent
S.A.No.1266 of 2019
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Indian Evidence Act - Section 92 and 92(1) - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) – Property - Sale Deed - Suit property belongs to respondent - She purchased suit property as a house site and then she constructed a building in suit property - Respondent and her husband approached appellant offering to sell suit property due to their urgent need of funds to discharge sundry debts and meet their urgent expenses - Upon agreeing to purchase suit property, negotiation was conducted in presence of middlemen - Sale price was fixed at certain lakhs - Sale agreement was entered into between appellant and respondent - Upon paying the advance amount of lakhs, period for completion of sale was fixed as 3 years - Appellant was ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration - Appellant issued a legal notice, calling upon the respondent to appear before Sub Registrar Office to receive the balance sale consideration and complete sale transaction - On receiving legal notice, respondent neither chose to appear before Sub Registrar Office, for executing Sale Deed nor sent a reply - Left with no other option, the appellant filed suit for the reliefs aforesaid - Whether it is true that respondent agreed to sell suit property to appellant. Para 20.
Finding of the Court: On other hand, respondent by incisive cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, and from other facts and circumstances of case, satisfactorily established that suit sale agreement was not really an agreement of sale, but only a document came to be executed in connection with loan transaction - Court finds that first appellate Court has rightly negative relief of specific performance - Respondent accepted execution of Ex.A1 as a nominal sale agreement executed in connection with loan transaction - For reasons stated, she is entitled to give evidence against this document - This binding is supported in Judgment reported in 2003 (6) SCC 595 and other Judgments relied on by learned counsel for respondent - Therefore this Court finds that law settled in 2017 (3) CTC 657 is not applicable to facts and circumstances of the case - Respondent by cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, placing her own case, disproved that Ex.A1 is not really a sale agreement, but it is a document executed in connection with a loan transaction - First appellate Court had rightly found that appellant has not established that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the date of agreement of sale - This Court finds from written statement of respondent that respondent has time and again pleaded that she is always ready to repay amount with interest - Though appellant has not prayed for alternative relief of return of advance amount, this Court in terms of equity and to render substantial justice to parties, directs the respondent to repay sum of lakhs with interest at 12 % per annum from date of plaint till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from date of decree till date of realization of amount.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in A.S.No.35 of 2018 reversing the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur in O.S.No.60 of 2012.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of sale agreement, dated 23.03.2009 alleged to have been executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of the appellant for possession of the suit property and for costs.
3. The case of the appellant, in brief, is as follows:
4. The case of the respondent is that she purchased the suit property as a vacant site on 27.09.2007 and then she constructed an RCC building in the house site. It is emphatically denied that she and her husband approache d the appellant to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.5 lakhs. It is her case that she and her husband approached the appellant for hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for the expenses relating to modification of existing house in the suit property. The appellant insisted the respondent and her husband to execute a nominal sale agreement by showing the nominal sale consideration, in his favour, as a security for advancing the loan. The appellant is giving finance to various persons. On believing his words, the respondent agreed to execute the nominal sale agreement in his favour. The appellant calculated interest for the hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for 3 years, and make the respondent to execute the nominal sale agreement by showing the advance sale consideration as Rs.2 lakhs. However, the respondent has received only an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as loan from the appellant. While the market value of the suit property is more than Rs.60 lakhs, a meager amount of Rs.5 lakhs was shown as a sale consideration in nominal sale agreement executed as a security in connection with the aforesaid loan transaction. The allegations that the appellant demanded the respondent to execute the sale deed and the respondent evaded to execute the same, are denied. After receiving the legal notice, when the respondent approached the appellant to receive the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at Rs.50,000/-, the appellant evaded to receive the said amount and filed the suit with an ulterior motive to grab the suit property by cheating the respondent. The respondent is ready to repay the hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the interest at Rs.50,000/
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
