Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Subramanian, R.Sakthivel, JJ.
Syed Akbar (Died) - Appellants
Vs.
V. Thilagar Madasamy - Respondent
A.S.No.477 of 2017 and CMP Nos.13088 of 2018 and 15249 of 2022
Decided On : 12-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.J.Amritha Sarayoo
For the Respondents: Mr.M.L.Ganesh
The agreement for sale of waqf property was rendered void due to statutory prohibitions, making the decree for specific performance unenforceable.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 56(1) - Specific Relief Act - Decree for specific performance - Agreement for sale of waqf property deemed void due to statutory prohibition on transfer of leasehold rights post-2014 - Court found that the agreement was unenforceable as it violated the Waqf Property Lease Rules, 2014. (Paras 12, 18, 24)
(B) Damages - Decree for damages of Rs.30,000/- per month deemed excessive and unsustainable in a specific performance suit - Court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to refund of advance with interest. (Paras 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 12.10.2007 for waqf property, claiming readiness to perform, while the defendant contended the agreement was void due to mental duress and statutory restrictions.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decree for specific performance and damages was set aside, with a decree for refund of advance granted instead.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the sale agreement under the Waqf Act and the appropriateness of the damages awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory prohibition on the transfer of waqf property rendered the agreement unenforceable, and damages awarded were excessive and not justified.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; decree for specific performance and damages set aside.
JUDGEMENT :
R.Subramanian, J.
The defendant in OS No.7875 of 2010 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is on Appeal, challenging the decree for specific performance granted in the said suit. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit for conviniance.
2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property viz. the super structure and the lease hold rights over the land belonging to a waqf under the suit agreement dated 12.10.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.11,75,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as contract. The plaintiff caused a notice to be issued on 19.03.2008 demanding performance expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
3. The defendant sent a reply on 04.04.2008 claiming that the Agreement is not valid and the same was extracted when the defendant was not in a proper and fixed state of mind and health. It is also claimed that he was in a severe state of mental shock due to an auction notice received from the Government approved auctioneers at the instance of his creditors which fixed the date of auction on 12.10.2007.
4. The defendant further averred that he was not allowed to read the contents of the agreement and he was almost forced to sign the same on the pretext that he could save the property from being auctioned. Along with the reply notice, the defendant annexed a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid as advance. The plaintiff issued a rejoinder reiterating his claim that the agreement was entered into save the property from being sold by the auctioneers at the instance of the creditors of the defendant.
5. It was also contended that the sale was voluntary and since what is sought to be sold is only the super structure and lease hold right of the defendant, the sale would be perfectly valid. A surrejoinder was issued by the defendant on 03.06.2008 reiterating his claim made in the reply notice. Finding that the defendant is unwilling to execute the sale, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance as aforesaid. The plaintiff would claim that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The balance amount was also deposited into Court at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff also made a prayer for damages at Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of suit till date of execution of the Sale Deed.
6. The defendant resisted the suit reiterating the averments contained in his reply notice apart from contending that the property being waqf property, the lease hold right is not alienable and therefore, the agreement itself is void ab initio. It was the further contention of the defendant that the agreement was entered into when he was facing a crunch situation and his property was brought to sale at the instance of his creditors under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act.
7. On the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:
1. Whether the sale agreement dated 12.10.2007 is valid;
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract;
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation;
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction;
5. To what other reliefs.
8. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked and the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked.
9. The learned Trial Judge on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the agreement was true and valid. He also found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The contention of the defendant that the agreement was extracted when he was under financial duress was rejected. The claim of the defendant based on the provisions of the Waqf Act and the Waqf Property Lease Rules 2014 was rejected on the ground that the defendant himself has purchased the property by initiating the suit for specific performance which was decreed and a sale deed was executed pursuant to the said
