Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J.
K.Prabakaran - Appellant
Vs.
S.Boopathi - Respondent
S.A.NO.725 Of 2018 And C.M.P.NO.21219 Of 2018
Decided On : 10-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Siddharth
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Ramesh for M/s.K.Sivasubramanian

The court ruled that a Sale Agreement was not effectively revoked, and the plaintiff was always ready to perform, necessitating specific performance.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Sale Agreement - Plaintiff sought specific performance of Sale Agreement dated May 26, 2006 for Suit Property - Trial Court decreed suit, finding first defendant not ready to perform - First Appellate Court confirmed - Second Appeal raised substantial questions regarding revocation of Sale Agreement and readiness of parties. (Paras 1, 9, 19)

(B) Revocation of Contract - The court held that the first defendant's legal notice did not clearly revoke the Sale Agreement, thus the plaintiff's suit for specific performance was maintainable. (Paras 15, 19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement with the first defendant for purchasing Suit Property, but the first defendant later attempted to revoke the agreement, leading to the suit for specific performance. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the first defendant was not ready to execute the Sale Deed and that the plaintiff was always willing to perform his part of the agreement. (Paras 19)

Issues: The main issues were whether the Sale Agreement was validly revoked and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part. (Paras 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the first defendant's actions did not constitute a clear revocation of the Sale Agreement, and the plaintiff's readiness to perform was established. (Paras 15, 19)

Result: The Second Appeal was partly allowed, modifying the lower court's decree regarding the deposit of sale consideration. (Paras 20)

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed by the first defendant in the Original Suit, who was unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated July 16, 2018, passed in A.S.No.27 of 2016 by the 'Principal District Court, Vellore' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 16, 2016 passed in O.S.No.117 of 2006 by the 'Subordinate Court, Vellore' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The Suit Property absolutely belongs to the first defendant, whose sister is the second defendant. The first defendant and the plaintiff entered into Sale Agreement dated May 26, 2006 whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase the Suit Property for a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, of which, Rs.75,000/- was paid upfront as advance. As per the Sale Agreement, the first defendant had to execute Sale Deed on or before August 25, 2006 upon receiving the balance sale consideration.

3.1. While the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement, the first defendant in collusion with his sister / second defendant is evading from performing his part. Notices were exchanged between the parties. The first defendant returned a sum of Rs.85,500/- by way of Demand Draft, which was sent along with his legal notice dated July 20, 2006, wherein he falsely alleged that the problem between the parties was sorted and plaintiff agreed to receive the refund of advance money along with damages. The first defendant has no right to unilaterally revoke the Sale Agreement. Hence the Suit for specific performance.

FIRST DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has admitted the factum of Sale Agreement and its terms as stated in the plaint. However, he denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement. The plaintiff who is a Government servant failed to obtain permission for purchasing the Suit Property. Accordingly to the first defendant, while he was ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement, his sister – Menaga / second defendant issued a legal notice to the plaintiff falsely claiming share over the Suit Property. She was in actual possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property, and refused to vacate it. On the other hand, the plaintiff insisted on delivery of possession immediately after execution of Sale Deed. Eventually, the matter was sorted out and the plaintiff agreed to rescind the contract upon receiving the advance of Rs.75,000/- along with Rs.10,500/- towards damages. However, when the first defendant approached the plaintiff with the said sum, the plaintiff refused to keep up his word. Hence, the first defendant issued the legal notice dated July 20, 2006 and sent a Demand Draft for Rs.85,500/- along with it, to the plaintiff. The same was received by the plaintiff on July 29, 2006, but the plaintiff failed to return the original Sale Agreement. As such, there is no Sale Agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the Original Suit.

SECOND DEFENDANT

5. The second defendant, who is the sister of the first defendant, was impleaded in the Suit as per the Order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2007 in the Original Suit. She remained ex-parte before the Trial Court.

TRIAL COURT

6. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.10 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 was marked.

7. After completion of trial and hearing both sides, the Trial Court concluded that Ex-A.2 – Legal Notice shows the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the Sale Agreement. Further, by relying on Ex-A.7 as well as the oral evidence of D.W.1 / first defendant, wherein he admitted that h