Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU
P. Ramakrishnan, (died) – Appellant
Versus
V. Arumugam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claims and facts about the sale agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments by defendants against the agreement. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. analysis of evidence regarding agreement's validity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's review of trial findings and agreement execution. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. conclusions on specific performance and appeal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. court's ruling on specific performance granted. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff in O.S.No.212 of 2012, on the file of the IV Additional District Court at Bhavani, aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2018 had filed the present Appeal Suit.
3.O.S.No.212 of 2012 had been filed seeking a direction against the defendants 1, 2 and 3 to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- with respect to the suit property after receiving the balance sale consideration and on failure, for the Court to execute the sale deed and to put the plaintiff in lawful possession of the suit property or in the alternate to refund of the advance sale consideration together with interest. By judgment dated 27.03.2018, the relief of specific performance was denied and the alternate reli
The court affirmed that a party's denial of an agreement's execution precludes them from claiming non-performance when readiness to perform has been established, resulting in a right to specific perf....
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.
A sale agreement signed by one party is valid if it evidences mutual consent, and readiness and willingness do not require specific phrasing in the plaint.
In a suit for specific performance, the Plaintiff must prove the genuineness of the agreement and his readiness to perform, failing which the suit must be dismissed.
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 affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
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.
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
