Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Kaliyannan - Appellant
Versus
Sellammal & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.4 of 2019 And CMP No.27 of 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. T. Dhanyakumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Ganesan.

Specific performance may be denied if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate possession and readiness to fulfill their contractual obligations, reaffirming the necessity of prior court rulings on property ownership.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10 and 14 - Second Appeal against confirmation of decree for specific performance of sale agreement - Concurrent findings by lower courts on validity of sale agreement established in evidence and absence of possession by plaintiff - Appellant's claim in conflict with previous court auction purchase, rendering the appeal untenable. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 13, 15)

(B) Legal principles - The courts emphasized the necessity of demonstrating readiness to perform the contract and the implications of non-possession to merit the discretionary relief of specific performance. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed specific performance based on a sale agreement while defendants contested both the execution of the agreement and possession. Third defendant introduced a prior auction sale affecting the claim.

Findings of Court:
The agreement's validity was confirmed, but the plaintiff's claim of possession was not substantiated, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Issues: The key issues addressed were the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance given the lack of possession and the impact of previous court rulings on ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that both lower courts correctly identified that possession was essential for granting relief, thereby upholding the decisions against the appellant.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background facts of the case and parties' claims. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. introduction to the appeal and previous court findings. (Para 2)
3. procedural history and pending actions. (Para 7 , 8)
4. arguments made by the parties. (Para 9 , 10)
5. court's analysis of the case. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. conclusion of the court. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 7, 2015 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2013 by the 'Sub Court, Namakkal' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for brevity] confirming the Judgment and Decree dated July 20, 2012 passed in O.S.No.419 of 2005 by the ‘Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for brevity].

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 was bequeathed to defendants 1 and 2 vide the Will dated July 6, 1979 executed by their father. The plaintiff entered into a registered Sale Agreement with the defendants 1 and 2 on December 2, 2004. The sale price was fixed at Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only). The period fixed for performance of contract was on or before June 13, 2005. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- on the same day viz., December 2, 2004 itself.

3.1. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 handed over possession of the Suit Property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract within the period mentioned in the Sale Agreement. The defendants 1 and 2 delayed their part of performance. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on June 3, 2005, calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to execute the Sale Deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendants received the said notice on June 4, 2005, but did not cause any reply. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance of the agreement and permanent injunction.

FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. The first defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. They denied the execution of Suit Sale Agreement as well as the passing of consideration and handing over possession under it. It is the case of defendants 1 and 2 that they borrowed money for their urgent requirements from various persons by executing promissory notes in their favour. Then the defendants 1 and 2 were unable to repay the loan and the lenders began demanding the money due and caused much trouble to defendants 1 and 2. Hence, with a view to escape from the lenders, they executed the Suit Sale Agreement sham and nominally, with no intention to sell the Suit Property. Moreover, the same is not acted upon. Hence, the defendants 1 and 2 sought to dismiss the Suit.

THIRD DEFENDANT'S CASE

5. The third defendant filed written statement stating that he has purchased ½ share in the Suit Property through Court Auction Sale in R.E.P. No.241/2005 and the plaintiff herein filed REA No.181/2006 in REP No.241/2005 praying not to confirm the sale. The said petition was dismissed and the sale was confirmed in favour of the third defendant in respect of 1/2 share in the Suit Property on December 28, 2005. Hence, the third defendant is not a necessary party to the Suit. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT

6. At trial, the plaintiff – Chellammal was examined as P.W.1, two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.13 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, the 2nd defendant – Tamilselvi was examined as D.W.1, 3rd defendant - Kaliyannan was examined as D.W.2 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.10 were marked.

6.1. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence and materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the Suit Sale Agreement is true and valid and accordingly, decreed the Suit for Specific Performance and directed the defendants 1 and 2 to execute Sale Deed in favour of th