Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S. Krishnasami (Died) & Others - Appellant
Versus
R. Marappan & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 217, 218 of 2012 & CMP Nos. 17662 & 17665 of 2012 & MP. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 100] - [O.S.No.623/2003, O.S.No.651/2003] - The court discussed the tenability of the sale agreement, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract, the binding nature of the agreement on minor defendants, and the failure of the lower Appellate Court to fulfill the mandate under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit property, claiming that the suit property was ancestral and that the defendants had borrowed money and agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. The defendants contested the tenability of the sale agreement, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, and the binding nature of the agreement on minor defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Appellate Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, due to the lower Appellate Court's failure to fulfill the mandate under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C.
Issues: The issues involved the tenability of the sale agreement, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, the binding nature of the agreement on minor defendants, and the failure of the lower Appellate Court to fulfill the mandate under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the lower Appellate Court failed to fulfill the mandate under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C., and therefore set aside the judgment and remanded the matter back to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
Final Decision: Both Second Appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, with a directive to hear the appeal afresh, consider every ground raised on fact and law, and deliver the final Judgment in both the appeals on or before 15.7.2022.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in S.A.No.217 of 2012: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 23.08.2011 confirm the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.623/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal dt.29.07.2010.
S.A.No.218 of 2012: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.63 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 23.08.2011 confirm the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.651/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal dt.29.07.2010.)
Common Judgment
1. The issue involved in both the Second Appeals are common and hence they are heard together and disposed of through this Common Judgment.
2. The 1st defendant in the suit was the appellant in both the Second Appeals. On his demise during the pendency of the Second Appeal, his daughters have been substituted as the appellants in both the Second Appeals.
3. The 1st respondent in both the Second Appeals were the plaintiff in the suit. The husband is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 623 of 2003 which is the subject matter in S.A. No. 217 of 2012. The wife is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 651 of 2003 and the same is the subject matter in S.A. No. 218 of 2012. The facts of the case in both the suits are identical and hence, it would suffice if the facts of the case in O.S. No. 623 of 2003 is taken as the basis for deciding these Second Appeals.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is an ancestral property of defendants 1 to 3. These defendants were in urgent need of money and hence borrowed money from both the husband and wife. It is stated that they had borrowed to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- from each plaintiff. They wanted to discharge their debts and hence agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-. Hence, they entered into a sale agreement dated 18.4.2000 with the plaintiff whereby the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- borrowed from each plaintiff was adjusted towards the advance amount and the balance Rs.25,000/- was agreed to be paid to defendants 1 to 3 on or before 17.4.2003 and at which point of time, the sale deed has to be executed in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The further case of the plaintiff is that the sale agreement itself envisaged that defendants 1 to 3 will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff along with the daughters of the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were evading from receiving the balance sale consideration and were not coming forward to execute the sale deed. Hence a legal notice dated 10.4.2003 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to be present at the office of the Sub Registrar on 17.4.2003 to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not act upon the legal notice, the suit came to be filed on 6.8.2003 seeking for the relief of specific performance and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit property.
6. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement and it was adopted by the 1st and 2nd defendants in both the suits. The 3rd defendant took a stand that the sale agreement dated 18.4.2000 was taken from defendants 1 to 3 through compulsion and force and in fact it was a fabricated document. It was further contended that the sale agreement is not supported by any consideration and the sale agreement is an unenforceable document. The defendants took a stand that they never intended to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and sought for the dismissal of the suit.
7. Both the Courts below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the lower Appellate Court to fulfill the mandate under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C., leading to the setting aside of the judgment and....
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the establishment of a substantial question of law, which was not present in this case.
A sale agreement remains enforceable if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness to perform and if the defendant fails to substantiate claims of fraud or lack of authority.
The court confirmed that appellate courts are restricted to substantial questions of law and cannot re-evaluate factual findings established in lower courts.
The appellate court confirmed the validity of a registered sale agreement and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's ruling on specific performance despite claims of tenancy.
Discretionary relief in specific performance cases must consider readiness, willingness, and circumstances of coercion, balancing hardship for both parties.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to demonstrate readiness and willingness for specific performance, as well as the application of Section 92 of the Evidence Act,....
The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be filed only against the persons who have entered into a sale agreement, and the necessity of parties in ....
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
