IMPORTANT POINT
A party seeking specific performance must disclose all material facts and cannot benefit from their own suppression of evidence; the principles of novation apply when a new contract supersedes an old one.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

Prayer in S.A.No.39 of 2017:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgement and the decree dated 29.10.2015 in A.S.No.43 of 2015 on the file of the Third Additional District Court, Salem, confirming the judgement and the decree dated 07.03.2014 in O.S.No.332 of 2012 before the First Additional Sub Court, Salem.

Prayer in C.M.P.No.5625 of 2023:- Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to receive the documents listed in the petition hereto as additional evidence in the above second appeal.

List of Documents

The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. The suit as well as first appeal filed by him were dismissed. Hence, he is before this Court.

Plaint Averments:-

2 (i) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he entered into a Suit Sale Agreement with respondent and her sister-Saradha on 13.02.2008. The agreed sale consideration was Rs.13,750/- per cent. The extent of the property agreed to be conveyed under the agreement was 80 and 1/2 cents. Thus, the total agreed sale consideration would be Rs.11,06,875/-. On the date of agreement itself, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to the respondent and said Saradha. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid within a period of six months. It was averred by the appellant that though time was specified in the Suit Sale Agreement, it was not treated as essence of contract. At the time of agreement, the agreement vendors were not in physical possession of the suit property and execution petition filed by him for taking delivery of the agreement mentioned property was pending. Therefore, it was specifically recited in the agreement that time shall stand extended till possession was taken.

2 (ii) It was further averred by the appellant that the respondent and her sister had received a further sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on later dates and made endorsement in the Suit Sale Agreement. It was also claimed that the respondent herself received a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 30.04.2008, Rs.30,000/- on 17.09.2008, Rs.20,000/- on 30.03.2009, again Rs.20,000/- on 17.11.2009, Rs.5,000/- on 16.02.2010, Rs.10,000/- on 26.04.2010, Rs.15,000/- on 26.06.2010, Rs.10,000/- on 09.10.2010, Rs.21,000/- on 27.01.2011 and Rs.50,000/- on 18.04.2011 from the appellant/plaintiff and made endorsements on the Suit Sale Agreement. Thus, the respondent alone had received a further sum of Rs.1,91,000/- under the endorsements referred above. It was claimed by the appellant that in the initial advance amount paid on the date of agreement and the further amounts paid based on joint endorsement of respondent and her sister, the respondent's half share would be Rs.2,15,000/- and she herself received a sum of Rs.1,91,000/- on various subsequent dates under the endorsements. Therefore, totally the respondent received a sum of Rs.4,06,000/- from the appellant.

2 (iii) It was also contended that the respondent and her sister Saradha had taken possession of the agreement mentioned property through Court during April-2011. Thereafter, the respondent's sister Saradha executed a Sale Deed after receiving balance of sale price as per the Suit Sale Agreement. However, the defendant postponed the execution of the Sale Deed as per the agreement under some pretext or other. In these circumstances, on 11.04.2012, the respondent issued a legal notice with false allegations. Immediately, the appellant issued a reply no