Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Pappa – Appellant
Versus
Gandhimathi – Respondent
S.A. No. 670 of 2017, C.M.P. No. 17405 of 2017
Decided On : 22-12-2023
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CIVIL PROCEDURE - Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The court interpreted this to mean that the plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement to the date of filing the suit. The court also referenced the ability of a manager of a Hindu joint family to bind minor members in a sale agreement for legal necessity, as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. These interpretations influenced the court's decision to allow the appeal for specific performance of the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful in their suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, appealed after the trial court dismissed their main relief but granted an alternative relief for the return of the advance amount. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite their readiness to pay the balance amount. The defendants contended that a separate consent deed existed, altering the terms of the sale agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as evidenced by a legal notice issued prior to the expiration of the agreement. The court also determined that the consent deed presented by the defendants was not valid, and thus the original sale agreement was binding.
Issues: 1. Whether the courts below correctly applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act regarding the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract. 2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance despite the plaintiffs proving the execution of the sale agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently proven their readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and that the manager of a Hindu joint family could enter into a sale agreement binding on minor members for legal necessity. The court emphasized that the absence of a reply to the legal notice from the defendants indicated their failure to contest the plaintiffs' claims effectively.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and a decree for specific performance was granted for the plaintiffs concerning the defendants' 4/15 share in the property, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Ordinate Judge at Kallakurichi dated 30.06.2014 in A.S. No. 52 of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 18.01.2012 in O.S. No. 226 of 2006.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance is the appellants. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court in respect of the main relief of specific performance and suit was decreed in respect of alternative relief for return of advance amount. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the property covered by suit agreement originally belonged to 1st respondent's husband and father of respondents 2 to 4 Velusamy. After death of Velusamy, the respondents/defendants succeeded to his estate and they had been enjoying the property. The 1st respondent, mother of other respondents was acting as Manager of the family. The suit sale agreement was entered into by 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant where under 1st respondent/1st defendant agreed to sell the suit property to 1st plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh. The agreement was entered into by 1st defendant in her capacity as Manager binding shares of minor defendants. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as an advance. It was agreed between the parties that balance amount of Rs. 70,000/- should be paid on or before 14.03.2006. Though the appellants were ready and willing to pay the balance sum of Rs. 70,000/- and in spite of several demands, the respondents failed to complete the sale transaction. Therefore, a legal notice was issued by the 1st appellant on 01.03.2006 calling upon the 1st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent failed to come forward to execute the sale deed. In these circumstances, the appellants were constrained to file a suit for specific performance.
3. The respondents filed a written statement wherein it was claimed by them that on the date of suit sale agreement, yet another agreement christened as consent deed was entered into between the parties where under the consideration for sale was mentioned as Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only). It was averred that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as an advance and appellants agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in the name of minor respondents 2 to 4 in a nationalized bank and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 70,000/- within 14.03.2006. It was also contended by the respondents that the appellants burked relationship between the parties. The 1st plaintiff's husband, the 2nd plaintiff is the elder brother of Velusamy namely the deceased husband of 1st defendant. The respondents also denied the averments in the plaint that 1st appellant was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. It was specifically pleaded by the respondents that appellants never had shown any interest to deposit Rs. 60,000/- in the name of minor respondents 2 to 4 as agreed in the consent deed.
4. The 1st respondent filed a separate written statement on behalf of the minor respondents 2 to 4 wherein it was contended that the agreement was entered into by 1st respondent on behalf of minors' share without obtaining sanction from the Court and therefore, the suit for specific performance of the same was unsustainable.
5. Before the Trial Court, the husband of the 1st appellant was examined as PW-1 and the attestor to Ex.A1 has been examined as PW-2 on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs. Three documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 on behalf of the appellants. The 1st defendant was examined as DW-1 and yet another attestor to Ex.A1 was examined as DW-2. On be
AI
The court established that a manager of a Hindu joint family can validly enter into a sale agreement binding on minor members for legal necessity, and that continuous readiness and willingness to per....
The Karta of a Hindu joint family can alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and such alienation is binding on minor coparceners if proven necessary.
The court established that specific performance can be enforced despite the necessity for a partition of jointly held property shares.
A sale agreement executed by one member of a joint family does not bind other members unless it is established that the executing member had the authority to act as Kartha, and specific performance c....
Suit for specific performance - Performance against Minors - Natural guardian - Court cannot give go bye to provisions of S. 8(2) of Act of 1956 - As they are not complied, decree for specific perfor....
Specific performance of an agreement is discretionary and unenforceable if not all necessary parties consent, and plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness to perform their obligations.
Point of law: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, where....
The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior co....
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
