Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel
S.R.K.Jayachandran (Died) – Appellant
Versus
B.Bhaskaran (Died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and parties’ respective cases (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial and first appellate court findings and procedural postures (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 17) |
| 3. parties’ detailed contentions and reliance on case law (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court’s analysis on burden of proof and document handling (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. ratio decidendi on substantial questions of law (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated September 12, 2017 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2016 by the 'II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated January 22, 2016 passed in O.S.No.108 of 2014 by the 'Subordinate Court, Arakonam' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].
3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
4. The plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement with defendants 1 and 2 on February 2, 2005 to purchase the Suit Property for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only), which was paid in full, and possession was handed over on the same date to the plaintiff by defendants 1
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....
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 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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that both the plaintiff and defendant should approach the court with clean hands in suits for specific performance and should not be ....
A sale agreement remains valid unless clearly revoked; unilateral returns and notices do not suffice to terminate obligations when the other party shows readiness to perform.
Unilateral revocation of a sale agreement without clear notice is invalid; the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness to perform for specific performance to be granted.
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.
Contract and Specific Reliefs - Section 20 of Specific Relief Act vests a discretionary power in court to grant a decree of specific performance and court is not bound to grant such a relief merely b....
The court ruled that a Sale Agreement was not effectively revoked, and the plaintiff was always ready to perform, necessitating 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
