Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Kavi Eswari & Others – Appellant
Versus
Munikrishnan – Respondent
S.A. No. 810 of 2012 & MP. Nos.1 of 2012 & 1 of 2013
Decided on : 18-03-2024
Specific Performance - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c) - Sale agreement, assignment, and readiness and willingness - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement for a property, claiming to be an assignee from the original agreement holder. The defendants resisted, alleging that the agreement was only for a loan transaction and had been cancelled. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff, as an assignee, could not claim readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as the original agreement holder was not ready and willing to perform. The sale agreement was deemed to be a security for a loan transaction, and the assignment in favor of the plaintiff was not legally sustainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the sale agreement, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness as an assignee, and the nature of the transaction as a loan or sale agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as an assignee, could not fulfill the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as the original agreement holder was not ready and willing to perform. The sale agreement was found to be intended as security for a loan transaction, and the assignment in favor of the plaintiff was deemed invalid.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment and decree. The suit for specific performance was decreed for the alternative prayer, directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum paid for the assignment, along with interest, within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2012 passed in AS.No.7 of 2011, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009 passed in OS.No.27 of 2007, on the file of Sub-ordinate Judge, Gudiyatham.)
1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants before this Court. The second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2012 passed in AS.No.7 of 2011 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2009 in O.S.No.27 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
The brief facts, which led to the filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:
3. According to the plaintiff, originally the suit property was his ancestral property. The plaintiff along with his father and mother sold a portion of the suit property to one Papammal through registered sale deed dated 05.10.1972 for a sum of Rs.760/-. The plaintiff along with his father sold the remaining portion of the suit property to one Chinnasamy through registered sale deed dated 02.08.1978 for a sum of Rs.600/-. The said Chinnasamy sold the property to Papammal on 31.03.1986 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-. As such, Papammal became the absolute owner of the entire suit property leaving behind her only son Kannan to succeed the suit property. According to the plaintiff, on 18.01.2006, the said Kannan entered into a sale agreement with one Manohar Reddy for selling the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as advance and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within 20 months and execute sale deed in favour of the purchaser. As the plaintiff was having a house on the southern side of the suit property and residing there, it is more convenient and essential for him to annex with the suit property for beneficial enjoyment. As such, the plaintiff got the sale agreement assigned from Manohar Reddy in his favour on 22.12.2006 for valid consideration.
4. According to the plaintiff, Manohar Reddy and after the assignment, he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed. When the plaintiff approached Kannan for completion of the sale, he sought time as he was not well but Kannan unfortunately died intestate on 04.01.2007. The first defendant, being his wife who succeeded to his estate, is bound to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff had approached the first defendant in the second week of March 2007 for completion of the sale but since she evaded, a legal notice dated 26.03.2007 was issued calling upon her to come to the registrar office on 30.03.2007 for registration. The 3rd defendant has approached the plaintiff and offered to pay Rs.50,000/- more than the sale amount paid by the plaintiff. But, however, the plaintiff declined the offer. Later the plaintiff learnt that the 3rd defendant on 29.03.2007 took the first defendant to the sub registrar office and got the nominal sale deed in favour of his son in law/second defendant. The sale deed is not real and genuine and not binding on the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for specific performance and in the alternative to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to return the sale consideration paid by him along with damages of Rs.70,000/.
5. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement and denied the sale agreement in Ex.A.1. According to the first defendant, her husband Kannan had entered into a registered sale agreement with one Manohar Reddy on 03.11.2005 only as security for loan transaction and the said agreement was cancelled thr
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 ....
Absence of the buyer's signature invalidates a sale agreement, requiring proof of the parties' intentions; the suit for specific performance is timely if filed within limitation after notice of refus....
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....
A sale agreement must be proven by its written terms, and inconsistencies in evidence can undermine claims for specific performance.
Point of law: Absence of any material, that the plaintiff had exercised undue influence in obtaining the sale agreement from the defendant at the time of the alleged loan transaction.
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'....
PONT OF LAW: readiness and willingness in completing her part of the sale transaction at the earliest point of time, all would only go to disclose that as the sale agreement had not been really execu....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was established in this case despite claims....
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
