Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar, J
Raniammal W/o Prakasam – Appellant
Versus
D. Shanthi W/o P. Dhananjayan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit for Specific Performance and granting alternative relief, the plaintiff filed the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.9 of 2022, whereas the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.8 of 2022 was filed by the defendant, challenging the decree and judgment granting alternative relief of refund of the alleged sale advance of Rs.20,00,000/-.
2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and the parties are one and the same, these Appeal Suits are disposed of in a common judgment. For the sake of convenient, the parties are described, as per their status and ranking in the trial Court.
3.Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case is as follows:-
The suit property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant the late T.V.Srinivasalu Naidu. He died on 07.10.1991 leaving behind his wife Smt.Chinnammal and six children namely, Dhanalakshmi, Devaki, Geetha, Kala, Smt.Raniammal (defendant) and Smt.D.Shanthi (plaintiff). For the legal heirs above, each is entitled to a share. The defendant, to meet out some of her urgent financial needs and also to settle her sundry loan dues, has decided to sell her 1/7
The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.
The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.
Point of law: Absence of any material, that the plaintiff had exercised undue influence in obtaining the sale agreement from the defendant at the time of the alleged loan transaction.
Agreement to sell – Suit seeking relief of specific performance cannot be allowed where Plaintiff fails to prove that agreement was intended to sell the property and was not executed as a security fo....
In suits for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove the agreement's genuineness and continuous readiness to perform, particularly when execution is disputed.
The appellate court ruled that the agreement for sale was not proved and lacked consideration, leading to the dismissal of the specific performance suit.
Point of law: Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale Specific Performance - If any transfer subsequent to sale agreement is not for consideration and not done in good faith, then, there is no neces....
The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance....
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
