Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
E.Rathinabai - Appellant
Versus
E.Shanmugam (Died) – Respondent
Second Appeal Nos.411 & 468 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2013
Decided on : 15-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Mr.S.K.Rahul Vivek for Mr.J.James
For the Respondents: Mr.S.K.Rahul Vivek for Mr.J.James, Mr.S.Udayakumar
IMPORTANT POINT
A party who has given up their rights under a reconveyance agreement cannot later seek specific performance of that agreement without demonstrating readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - RECONVEYANCE AGREEMENT - Specific Relief Act, Section 16(c); Limitation Act, Article 113; Indian Contract Act - The court analyzed the validity of the reconveyance agreement dated 25.08.1980 and the subsequent letter dated 18.01.1994, concluding that the plaintiff had given up her rights under the original agreement in exchange for a sum of Rs.83,500. The court emphasized the necessity of proving readiness and willingness for specific performance, which the plaintiff failed to do. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these agreements and the absence of a valid claim for specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Rathinabai, sought specific performance of a reconveyance agreement after transferring her rights to the defendant, who was to reconvey the property. The plaintiff claimed she was defrauded and had not received rent from the property, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff had received payment and given up her rights under the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had indeed given up her rights under the reconveyance agreement in exchange for a payment of Rs.83,500. The court ruled that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was not maintainable as she had not shown readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether the reconveyance agreement was annulled by the plaintiff's acceptance of cash? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to rent arrears?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party cannot seek specific performance of an agreement that has been effectively abandoned. The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, was a critical factor in denying her claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance but ordered the defendant to pay Rs.40,000 with interest to the plaintiff, recognizing the outstanding amount due under the agreement.
JUDGMENT :
These two second appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the court of the I Additional District Judge at Thiruvallur in A.S.No.13 of 2012 dated 13.12.2013 in partly modifying the judgment and decree of the court of Subordinate Judge at Tiruttani in O.S.No.21 of 2010 dated 31.10.2011.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the original suit.
3. O.S.No.70 of 2008 was originally presented before the learned Subordinate Judge at Tiruvallur. Subsequently, it was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruttani.
4. The plaintiff has sought for the following reliefs:
“i. Directing the defendant to execute the sale deed based on the agreement of re conveyance dated 25.08.1980 and 18.01.1994, the letter by the defendant after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.83,500/-.
ii. Directing the defendant pay to the plaintiff the arrears of rent received by the defendant from the tenants from 1994 to the year 2007 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-
iii. For permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from collecting the rents for the suit premises from the tenants.
iv. For the costs of the suit
v. For any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under proper circumstances of the case and render justice accordingly.”
5. This suit has a background. On 10.02.1974, the plaintiff/Rathinabai entered into an agreement for sale regarding the suit schedule mentioned property with one Nathamuni Udayar vagayara. The plaintiff was put in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement as part performance of the same. Since the original vendors namely Nathamuni Udayar and others did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff decided to file a suit for specific performance. Accordingly, she approached the defendant for filing the same.
6. The plaintiff pleaded that she is an illiterate lady and had approached the defendant with a hope that the defendant will get the property from Nathamuni Udayar on her behalf. The defendant had advised her that the sale agreement be transferred in his name and believing his words, the plaintiff transferred the agreement of sale in favour of the defendant. This was by virtue of the deed dated 25.08.1980. It is her specific case that this document is not supported by consideration. On getting the sale deed executed in his name, the defendant had agreed to reconvey the same to the plaintiff on the same day.
7. As per the agreement of re-conveyance, the plaintiff was to collect the rents, but unfortunately the defendant prevented her from doing so. Since the plaintiff did not have any income, she had leased out the suit schedule mentioned property, which had been given to her in part performance of the agreement dated 10.02.1974, in favour of a hotelier and she left for Bangalore.
8. On the basis of the agreement dated 25.08.1980, the defendant had filed a suit for specific performance against Nathamuni Udayar and others. However, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff about what transpired in the same. The plaintiff pleaded that sometime in 1993, she enquired about the case and she was informed by the defendant that the matter is now pending in second appeal. She stated that she visited the defendant subsequently on 19.01.1994. During that meeting, the defendant received the original reconveyance agreement and handed over a letter dated 18/1/1994. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs.38,500/- namely Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.18,500/- by cheque to the plaintiff. The plaintiff without proper understanding had received the amount. She thought that the defendant was paying the rents that he had collected from the tenants.
9. In and about 01.10.2007, the plaintiff was informed by one Narasimhan, her friend who was residing in Agraharam Village that the second appeals filed against Nathamuni Udayar and others had come to a conclusion and pursuant thereto, the learned District Munsif at Tiruttan
