Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. Nisha Banu, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
Surendran - Appellant
Vs.
G.Selladurai - Respondent
A.S(MD)No.107 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 28-10-2022
specific performance - sale agreement - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Power Of Attorney Act, 1882, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court discussed the genuineness of the sale agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. It also considered the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside, and the appeal suit was allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement, alleging that the 2nd and 3rd defendants conspired to defeat his rights. The defendants denied the genuineness of the agreement and raised issues regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the genuineness of the sale agreement was questionable, the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness, and the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was not justified.
Issues: Genuineness of the sale agreement, validity of the earlier suit, bona fide purchaser status, plaintiff's readiness and willingness, comparison of signatures, plaintiff's conduct, and exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the genuineness of the sale agreement was questionable, the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness, and the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was not justified.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside, and the appeal suit was allowed. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
J.Nisha Banu, N.Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
This appeal suit has been filed by the 2nd defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli in O.S.No.111 of 2007, dated 06.08.2012, decreeing the relief of specific performance sought for by the plaintiff/1st respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed with the same rank assigned in the suit.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is the owner of the subject property and he appointed the 3rd defendant as his Power Of Attorney agent through registered Power Of Attorney deeds dated 22.08.2002 (marked as Ex.A1) and 09.06.2004 (marked as Ex.A2), empowering the 3rd defendant to sell the property. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 3rd defendant in her capacity as the agent, entered into an agreement of sale dated 01.07.2006 (marked as Ex.A3) with the plaintiff. As per the sale agreement, the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.35,01,000/- and an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- was received by the agent on the date of agreement by way of cash. The agreement fixed a period of two years for the payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,01,000/- and on receipt of the same, to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff has alleged that a suit came to be filed by the 2nd defendant against the 3rd defendant in her individual capacity in O.S.No.79 of 2006 before the District Court, Tiruchirappalli, seeking for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement dated 26.04.2004. Since there was a dispute regarding this agreement, a new agreement was entered into on 26.07.2004 and this agreement was sought to be enforced in the said suit. It is stated that the plaintiff came to know about the filing of the suit and hence, he filed an application to implead himself as a party on 13.04.2007. The affidavit and impleading petition filed in O.S.No.79 of 2006 was marked as Ex.B7. Notice was ordered and the case was adjourned and it was posted on 17.06.2007. It is further alleged that the 3rd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.355 of 2007 on 04.06.2007 for advancing the hearing date from 17.06.2007. This application was marked as Ex.B4. On 14.06.2007, an Order was passed advancing the hearing from 17.06.2007 to 15.06.2007 and according to the plaintiff, this Order was passed behind his back. When the matter was posted on 15.06.2007, a joint memo was filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants as if they have reached a settlement and a sale deed dated 27.4.2007 (marked as Exs.B2 and B3) was executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and a prayer was made to dismiss the suit as settled out of Court by recording the memo. A full satisfaction memo was also filed by the 3rd defendant along with an affidavit and a petition, as if the 2nd defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.23,54,107/- to the account of the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2006 and to permit the 3rd defendant to withdraw the same. The I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli passed an Order in the application on 06.07.2007 and directed a cheque for a sum of Rs.23,54,107/- to be issued in favour of the counsel who was appearing for the 3rd defendant. The application filed by the plaintiff to implead himself was also dismissed on 15.06.2007 and the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2006 was closed. The applications, memo and the Order passed by the I Additional District Judge in O.S.No.79 of 2006 have been marked as Exhibits B4 to B7. The plaintiff has alleged that the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant entered into a conspiracy to defeat the right of the plaintiff and the applications were filed in a hasty manner and the sale deed was executed in favour of the 2nd defendant in a hasty manner and none of these are binding on the plaintiff. It is further stated that the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant was only Rs.3,60,000/- and whereas the allege
The exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act requires the court to satisfy itself about the existence of a sale agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pe....
The court ruled that statutory rights of a bona fide purchaser prevail over equitable rights of an agreement holder in cases of specific performance, particularly in the absence of evidence proving r....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract for entitlement to specific performance.
When a defendant alleges coercion regarding the execution of a document, the burden is on them to lead evidence. A failure to enter the witness box to cross-examination results in an adverse presumpt....
Point of law: Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in S....
The continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, and the agreement must be validly executed by all necessary pa....
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
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
