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.

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 09.09.2011. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement, dated 27.10.2012 regarding the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh thirty thousand only) and a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) was paid as advance. The time for completion of sale deed was fixed as six months. The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay balance and get the sale deed executed, but, the first defendant had been evading to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed. The plaintiff issued a legal notice, dated 22.04.2013. The first defendant sent a reply admitting the sale agreement, sale consideration and receipt of advance sale amount. However, the first defendant informed that her mother Marudayammal cancelled the gift settlement deed and sold the suit property to 2^nd defendant, who in turn sold the same to defendants 3 and 4. The first defendant also informed that his brother forcefully evicted the first defendant and captured all the original deeds and hence, he lodged a police complaint. The plaintiff further learnt that in order to avoid the execution of sale deed, the first defendant colluded with her mother and defendants 2 to 4 cancelled the gift settlement deed and executed the sale deed. Hence, the suit.

5. Case of the 1st Defendant :

The first defendant admitted the sale agreement, dated 27.10.2012 entered into with the plaintiff. Despite the plaintiff attempted to pay the balance sale consideration, due to existence of family dispute the first defendant was unable to receive the balance and execute the sale deed. Without knowledge of the first defendant, her brothers and her mother Marudayammal cancelled the gift settlement deed executed in favour of the 1^st defendant and sold the suit property to 2^nd defendant, who in turn sold to defendants 3 and 4. The brothers forcibly evicted the first defendant from the suit property and took away all the original deeds. The first defendant is always ready and willing to execute the sale deed but in the absence of all the originals she is unable to perform her part of contract. The suit is to be dismissed.

6. Case of the defendants 2 to 4:

It is true that the suit property belonged to Marudayammal, mother of the first defendant, by virtue of sale deed, dated 09.04.1999. But she had not executed a gift deed to the first defendant on 09.09.2011. The first defendant asked