Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 537
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
M. Padma – Appellant
Versus
V. Veeramani – Respondent
S.A. (MD) Nos. 108, 109, 110 of 2021, C.M.P. (MD) No. 1765, 1766, 1767 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Veera Kathiravan.
For the Respondents: V. Meenakshi Sundaram, D. Nallathambi.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100- Second Appeal – Agreement - Specific performance of an agreement - To set aside the judgment and decree - Contribution made by the wife- Permissive possession of wife – Agreement obtain under undue influence and coercion – held, When there is an ambiguity in the very nature of the document to be executed, Exhibit B13 agreement is not legally enforceable. It is clear that there was no consensus ad idem between the parties to the agreement even with regard to the nature of the document that should be executed. Hence, agreement suffers from ambiguity and not enforceable in the eye of law –Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Prayer: S.A. (MD) No. 108 of 2021: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 56 of 2018 dated 06.11.2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 158 of 2013 dated 24.08.2017 and to allow the second appeal.
S.A. (MD) No. 109 of 2021: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 6 of 2018 dated 06.11.2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 238 of 2010 dated 24.08.2017 and to allow the second appeal.
S.A. (MD) No. 110 of 2021: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 7 of 2018 dated 06.11.2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 240 of 2013 dated 24.08.2017. (In all the appeals)
S.A. (MD) No. 108 of 2021:
1. The plaintiff is the appellant.
2. The plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 158 of 2013 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 21.03.2001 said to have been executed by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff had filed A.S. No. 56 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
S.A. (MD) No. 109 of 2021
3. The defendant is the appellant.
4. The plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 238 of 2010 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed A.S. No. 6 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendant had filed the above second appeal.
S.A. (MD) No. 110 of 2021:
5. The plaintiff is the appellant.
6. The plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 240 of 2013 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant had filed A.S. No. 7 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to reverse the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.
Consolidated Pleadings:
7. S.A. (MD) No. 108 of 2021 arises out of a suit for specific performance filed by one Padma as against her former husband Veeramani. According to the plaintiff, she got married to the defendant on 26.08.1987. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade-II in a Regional Forensic Centre and the defendant was working as a Senior Inspector in Co-operative Department at Tirunelveli. The plaintiff had further contended that both of them were living together up to April-2003 and thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between them.
8. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant/husband had filed H.M.O.P. No. 66 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli seeking the relief of divorce and the plaintiff/wife had filed H.M.O.P. No. 72 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights. After a joint trial, the prayer for divorce was rejected and the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed. As against the same, the defendant/husband had fi
