Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
K. Dhanaraveendhiran – Appellant
Versus
Kavitha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 13.08.2025 made in A.S.No.94 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Tract Court) Palani, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2023 made in O.S.No.519 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.519 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani, claiming the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 02.01.2009 and in alternative, for refund of the advance amount of Rs.7,97,000/- with interest at 12 % p.a., and costs.
3.The defendants 3 to 6 filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Palani, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2023, dismissing the suit for the relief of specific performance and granted the alternative relief for refund of the advance amount, directing the defendants to pay jointly or severally the advance amount of Rs.7,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of suit sale agreement till the date of decree and thereafter,
The court held that the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and concurrent findings by lower courts are not to be disturbed without a substantial question of....
The High Court cannot re-assess evidence in second appeals, focusing only on substantial questions of law while confirming findings of lower courts.
The court ruled that specific performance requires proof of intent to sell, and failure to prove such intent negates the right to enforce the agreement against the defendant.
Presumption of refund arises when original sale documents are returned; burden lies on plaintiff to prove consideration not refunded and possession for specific performance under unregistered sale ag....
The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
Specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy that requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform their obligations within the stipulated time.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the establishment of a substantial question of law, which was not present in this case.
The court affirmed that the burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it and upheld the validity of the sale agreement, reinforcing principles of specific performance in contract law.
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
