Court ruled that unregistered sale agreements cannot invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the plaintiff's laches in seeking specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated February 27, 2020 passed in A.S.No.29 of 2018 by the 'Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated February 1, 2018 passed in O.S.No.80 of 2016 by the 'Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].

2. The respondents herein are the legal heirs / legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant - Samidurai. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their nomenclature in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The Suit Property originally belonged to the sole defendant– Samidurai vide Sale Deed dated July 20, 1978. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Sale Agreement on June 25, 2003 in respect of Suit Property. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only]. On the date of Sale Agreement itself, the defendant received the entire sale consideration in cash and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the Suit Property. The defendant agreed to execute a Sale Deed immediately after he obtains his original Title Deed. However, later, when the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute Sale Deed by producing the original Title Deed, the defendant delayed on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on November 20, 2015 calling upon the defendant to execute Sale Deed. The defendant issued a reply notice dated November 27, 2015 containing false averments.

3.1. The plaintiff has formed a Fish Pond in a portion of the Suit Property and in the remaining portion, she is cultivating paddy crops. On December 5, 2015, the defendant with his men tried to enter into the Suit Property and cause damages to the Fish Pond and the crops. The plaintiff is entitled to the benefit under Section 53 -A of the ‘Transfer of Property Act, 1882’ [‘T.P. Act’ for short]. Hence, the Suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and costs.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. The defendant purchased the Suit Property from one Loganathan vide Sale Deed dated July 20, 1978. Then, on June 3, 1979, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the plaintiff's husband- Ramachandran and executed a promissory note in his favour. On the same date, an unregistered Bogiam Agreement was also entered into between the defendant and plaintiff's husband, whereby the plaintiff's husband was allowed to enjoy the Suit Property in lieu of interest on the borrowed money. On June 26, 1980, the defendant repaid the promissory note debt and redeemed the Suit Property from the plaintiff's husband.

4.1. Again, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff's husband by mortgaging the Suit Property and the plaintiff's husband began enjoying it again as Bogiadhar. The plaintiff's husband is having land on three sides of the Suit Property. When defendant tendered the money to the plaintiff's husband to redeem the Suit Property, the plaintiff's husband delayed the process and filed the Original Suit through his wife. The alleged Sale Agreement dated June 25, 2003 was created fraudulently with a view to defeat and defraud the defendant's legitimate rights over the Suit Property. The plaintiff has no right over the Suit property. Hence, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

TRIAL COURT

5. At trial, the plaintiff's husband-Ramachandran was examined as P.W.1 and one Sivasankar Vadivel, witness to Ex-A.1, was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.5 were marked on th