Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
V. Jayabalan – Appellant
Versus
D. Ezhumalai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.B.BALAJI, J.
The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2015 before the II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam. Challenging the decree in the said suit, directing refund of Rs.14 lakhs, together with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of plaint and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.14 lakhs, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Pleadings: The plaint in brief:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant for purchase of the suit property, for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs. An agreement was entered into on 12.11.2012 and out of the agreed sale consideration, the plaintiff already paid Rs.13 lakhs. The remaining consideration was agreed to be paid in two years time. The defendant again approached the plaintiff on 20.03.2013, stating that he needs money urgently and the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was recorded by way of an endorsement on 20.03.2013. Yet again on 17.10.2013, further Rs.50,000/- was also borrowed from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to pay only Rs.1 lakh towards balance sale consideration. The plaintiff pleads that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and th
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.
Agreement to Sell – Payment of any specific amount by way of advance sale consideration must find written endorsement in the agreement.
The court determined that the agreement was intended as a security for a loan rather than a sale, emphasizing the necessity of proving readiness and willingness for specific performance.
The court can grant alternative relief of refund even if not explicitly claimed, ensuring fair justice is delivered in contract disputes.
Parties must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract to successfully claim specific performance; defendants' denial of contract validity shifts the burden of proof on....
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....
The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform an agreement of sale, and the court's discretion to consider ....
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
