Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sakthivel
Kannan – Appellant
Versus
Venkatesan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Sakthivel, J.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated October 30, 2018 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2016 by the 'Additional District Court (Fast Track Court) Villupuram' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 22, 2015 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2012 by the '1st Additional Sub Court, Villupuram' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was set aside and alternate remedy of return of advance money was granted.
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 owned and possessed by the defendant. On November 1, 2010, both parties entered into a Sale Agreement, wherein the plaintiff agreed to purchase the Suit Property for Rs.1,86,000/- and the defendant accepted an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. The remaining Rs.86,000/- was to be paid within 40 days, after which the defendant was to execute the Sale Deed in the plaintiff's name. The Sale Agreement was properly executed with signatures from both parties, witnesses and the scribe. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and repeated
The plaintiff's claim for specific performance was denied due to the lack of clean hands and undisclosed encumbrances; however, he was entitled to the return of the advance amount with interest.
The court ruled that doubts surrounding the authenticity of a Sale Agreement preclude the granting of specific performance, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to prove the agreement's validity.
The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform a contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and failure to do so negates entitlement to specific performance.
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract precludes specific performance, but the first defendant must return the advance amount with interest.
The court established that a sale agreement lacking necessary signatures and evidence of payment cannot be enforced for specific performance, but a partial refund of advance is permissible.
An agreement of sale signed by vendor alone and delivered to purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can ....
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.
The court ruled that specific performance requires proof of intent to sell, and failure to prove such intent negates the right to enforce the agreement against the defendant.
Presumption of refund arises when original sale documents are returned; burden lies on plaintiff to prove consideration not refunded and possession for specific performance under unregistered sale ag....
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
