Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VADAMALAI
Periya Samy – Appellant
Versus
Vijaya Kumar (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.VADAMALAI, J.
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 24.08.2016 passed in A.S.No.68 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2015 passed in O.S.No.97 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur.
2. The appellants are defendants 3 and 4 and the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiff and defendants 1st & 2 in O.S.No.97 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance directing the 1 defendant to execute sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- in respect of the suit property.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.97 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur.
4. Case of the plaintiff:
The suit property originally belonged to the first defendant’s mother Marudayammal. Marudayammal purchased the suit property from Ellammal and another by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 09.04.1999. Then, Marudayammal gifted the suit property to the first defendant by executing unconditional gift settlement deed, dated
Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid; valid title is essential for specific performance, and admissions of readiness by parties fulfill evidentiary requirements for relief.
Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is invalid; admissibility of a party's own acknowledgment supports specific performance claims.
A registered unconditional gift settlement deed cannot be unilaterally revoked, and specific performance can be granted if the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
The revocation of a settlement deed must be justified under the legal provisions, and the court will consider evidence and legal principles to determine the validity of such revocation.
The court ruled that a Sale Agreement was not effectively revoked, and the plaintiff was always ready to perform, necessitating specific performance.
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.
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
