Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
M. Rangasamy - Appellant
Versus
Appachi @ Appaji & Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 1765 of 2003 & C.M.P. No. 22527 of 2023
Decided On : 10-11-2023
specific performance - sale agreement - Or.41.R.27 - Or.41.R.28 - subsequent events - nullity of judgment - additional evidence
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance claiming that the defendants evaded executing the sale deed and demanded an enhanced rate. The Trial Court granted a decree of specific performance in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision based on additional evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the First Appellate Court did not follow the proper procedure in admitting additional evidence and rendering a finding on the suspicious sale agreement. The Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to complete the exercise of hearing the parties with regard to the additional documents sought to be produced.
Issues: Procedure for admitting additional evidence, suspicious sale agreement, subsequent events, nullity of judgment
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of following the proper procedure for admitting additional evidence and considering subsequent events that may impact the validity of the judgment.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Trial Court to complete the exercise of hearing the parties with regard to the additional documents sought to be produced.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2003 made in A.S.No.50 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001 made in O.S.No.131 of 1990 on the file of Sub- Ordinate Court at Tiruppur.)
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant before this Court.
2. The case of the appellant, as plaintiff in the suit was that the suit property belong to defendants 1 and 2 who had purchased the same from Srinivasa Naidu and others in and by sale deed dated 14.07.1978. The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendants 1 and 2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.68,539/- in respect of 7 acres out of total 8.96 acres owned by defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, he paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- and the balance was agreed to be paid on or before 01.02.1990 and thereafter the sale deed was to be executed. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration according to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 were evading to execute the sale deed and demanding an enhanced rate and were also trying to create encumbrance to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice on 20.01.1990, calling upon them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement and not to indulge in creating any further encumbrance over the property. They also caused a paper publication to such effect.
3. The defendants 1 and 2 replied to the said notice denying the sale agreement and claiming that they have executed only a mortgage in favour of the 3rd defendant which according to the plaintiff was a sham and nominal document created by the defendants 1 and 2 colluding with the 3rd defendant the mortgagee. The mortgagee has been arrayed as the 3rd defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiff, he is prepared to deposit the balance sale consideration as and when the Court directs and the suit is not barred by limitation having been filed on 05.04.1990.
4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that they never executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and they also never received any advance from the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the suit agreement was fabricated and forged. It is also contended by the defendants that the plaintiff might have created the agreement using the blank signed, stamp papers and other documents, in order to take away the property of the defendants. It is further pleaded in the written statement that on 19.07.1989, the defendants have entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.Shanmugam and a portion of the property has also been subsequently conveyed to him, in and by a registered sale deed on 19.01.1990 for a consideration of Rs.75,000/- and that the plaintiff was fully aware of the said sale also. Further, it is specifically averred by the defendants that the plaintiff has no wherewithal to advance a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the plaintiff has approached the Court with a false case.
5. Before the Trial Court, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Mr.Palanisamy as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants the 1st and 2nd defendants was examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively and no documents were exhibited.
6. The Trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W.2, the witness held that the agreement was indeed a sale agreement and the defendants were bound by the same. The Trial Court granted a decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. As against the same, defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.50 of 2002. In the said Appeal I.A.No.327 of 2002 was filed under Or.41 R.27 C.P.C seeking to receive the sale deed dated 17.01.1990 executed by the appellants in favour of Shanmugam.
7. The First Appellate Court rendered a finding tha
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the proper procedure for admitting additional evidence and considering subsequent events that may impact the validit....
An agreement of sale signed by vendor alone and delivered to purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can ....
Appellate court admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must follow Rules 28 and 29, providing rebuttal opportunity via evidence recording or remand, else prejudice results requirin....
The duty of the first appellate court to consider and decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on merits before or at the time of deciding the first appeal finally, and the appellate court's....
The court affirmed that specific performance can be granted when the execution of the sale agreement is proven and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform their contractual ob....
The judgment establishes that specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff proves the execution of the contract and demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform, despite the defendant'....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an inadequately stamped and unregistered agreement for sale is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance.
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
