Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
R. Kannan – Appellant
Versus
G. Amsaveni – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and factual basis. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
The Appeal Suit arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.565 of 2013 before the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore, in a suit for specific performance filed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted a decree for specific performance, aggrieved over which, A.S.No.284 of 2022 has been filed.
3.By order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matters were tagged together, for joint disposal.
5.The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 03.01.2023 and the following substantial questions of law have been framed:
b) Whether Ex.A1 promissory note is not rendered unenforceable in view of the glaring material alteration contained thereon and absence of consideration as stated thereon?
6.In order to appreciate the commonality of facts in both the Appeal Suit, as well as the Second Appeal, it would be necessary to cull out the respective pleadings in the two suits from which these proceedings arise.
The plaintiff submits that the defendant is known to him for the last two years and he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the plaintiff, by a cheque on 21.01.2013 for which the defendant
The court upheld the trial findings that the plaintiff did not establish readiness for specific performance, confirming that a refund of advance was appropriate despite concurrent acknowledgments of ....
The court ruled that a sale agreement intended as security for a loan does not entitle the plaintiff to specific performance, emphasizing the necessity of proving readiness and willingness to perform....
The court established that an agreement labeled as a sale can be deemed a security for a loan if the evidence supports such a conclusion, and specific performance can be denied if the plaintiff fails....
A sale agreement must be proven by its written terms, and inconsistencies in evidence can undermine claims for specific performance.
The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.
The court ruled that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract, justifying the denial of specific performance and allowance for a refund instead.
PONT OF LAW: readiness and willingness in completing her part of the sale transaction at the earliest point of time, all would only go to disclose that as the sale agreement had not been really execu....
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.
Agreement to sell – Suit seeking relief of specific performance cannot be allowed where Plaintiff fails to prove that agreement was intended to sell the property and was not executed as a security fo....
The court reaffirmed that in specific performance cases, the burden of proof lies on the defendant to substantiate claims regarding the advance amount and contract genuineness, ultimately determining....
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
