Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
V. Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
M. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
S.A. No. 518 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 02-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:C. Ravichandran, Advocate. For the Respondents:S. Mukunth, for M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates Advocates.

To obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the suit. Mere issuance of a notice is not sufficient. The court may consider the conduct of the parties and other circumstances in determining readiness and willingness.

Headnote:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c), Section 20 The court referred to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court also considered Section 20, which grants discretionary power to the court to decree specific performance. The court emphasized that the relief of specific performance is equitable and depends on the conduct of the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, claiming that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant denied the sale agreement and contended that it was executed as security for a loan transaction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the plaintiff had not proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff filed a second appeal challenging the appellate court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement till the filing of the suit. Mere issuance of a notice to the defendant was not sufficient to prove readiness and willingness. The court relied on precedents to emphasize that the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness at all stages of the contract. The court also found that the defendant failed to establish that the agreement was a loan transaction. The court upheld the appellate court's decision to deny specific performance and ordered the defendant to refund the advance amount to the plaintiff with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: To obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the suit. Mere issuance of a notice is not sufficient. The court may consider the conduct of the parties and other circumstances in determining readiness and willingness. The burden is on both parties to establish their claims. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, and the defendant failed to establish that the agreement was a loan transaction.
Result: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the appellate court's decision to deny specific performance. The suit was partly decreed, ordering the defendant to refund the advance amount to the plaintiff with interest.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2013 in A.S.No.95 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore made in O.S.No.711 of 2008 dated 10.08.2012.)

1.The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.711 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, filed against the defendant/respondent herein for the relief of specific performance, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property as per the sale agreement dated 07.07.2006.

2. The defendant contested the suit and denied the alleged sale agreement with the plaintiff and also contended that the sale agreement was executed only as security for the purpose of loan transaction.

3. On hearing both sides, the trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/respondent herein has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.95 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore and the first appeal was allowed and the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this present Second Appeal.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of the suit property and he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 07.07.2006 in which the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and the defendant has received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance on the same day. The further case of the plaintiff is that the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- must be paid to the defendant within a period of 11 months and on receipt of the same, the defendant has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant was evading to execute the sale deed on one pretext or the other. From the date of agreement itself, the plaintiff has insisted the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour by offering Rs.1,00,000/- being the balance of sale price. But the defendant expressed his inability to execute the sale deed. Hence, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 23.01.2008 to the defendant, calling upon him to execute the sale deed in his favour within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. Even though the notice returned with the endorsement as ''''not claimed.'''' Immediately, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him not to file suit in this regard and assured him that he would execute the sale deed on 11.04.2008 by receiving the balance sale price. Thereafter, the plaintiff learns that the defendant is making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to 3rd parties for higher price by suppressing the existence of the registered sale agreement dated 07.07.2006 between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the suit.

5. The case of the defendant is that he had money transaction with the plaintiff and instead of executing mortgage deed for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- at the instance of the plaintiff, the suit sale agreement was executed. The defendant has paid interest every month at Rs.3,750/- from 08.06.2006. The plaintiff knowing well that the defendant was away from Coimbatore, sent a notice dated 23.01.2008 with mala-fide intention, Further, the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration within 11 months that was fixed in the sale agreement itself and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. The defendant was ready to re-pay the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest thereon. The plaintiff demanded exorbitant interest. The loan was obtained from the plaintiff to meet the urgent family needs of the defendant. The suit property is the only residential property belonging to the family of t