Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Krishnamurthy – Appellant
Versus
Valarmathi – Respondent
S.A.No.1329 & 1330 of 2009
Decided On : 02-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs. V.Srimathi
For the Respondents: Mr. K.Govi Ganesan

Absence of the buyer's signature invalidates a sale agreement, requiring proof of the parties' intentions; the suit for specific performance is timely if filed within limitation after notice of refusal.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Specific Performance - Appeals against decree of specific performance dismissed - Courts determined absence of buyer's signature on sale agreement invalidates it - Burden of proof lies with claimant to establish intentions of parties in sales - Agreement lacked necessary recitals. (Paras 11, 12, 20, 22, 27)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Limitation for specific performance - Suit filed within three years from refusal to perform the contract was held timely, raising no bar on limitation. (Paras 25, 29)

Facts of the case:
Second appeals filed against dismissal of two prior suits for specific performance and permanent injunction over disputed property title between tenant and owner after previous reconveyance. Alleged prior sale agreement not supported by buyer's signature or necessary documentation, resulting in the findings of the Courts below.

Findings of Court:
Courts found that the alleged sale agreement was a mere receipt for loan repayment, insufficient to grant specific performance. The original titleholder's actions and possession established the legal ownership of the plaintiff and her husband over the property.

Issues: The court examined whether the lack of buyer's signature invalidates a sale agreement, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and the adequacy of the first appellate Court's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Intent of the parties and comprehensive proof are essential for establishing a valid sale agreement; mere signature of the vendor does not validate absent buyer's signature. The suit was timely as it was instituted within the limitation period post notice of refusal.

Result: Second Appeals dismissed, confirming the first appellate Court's judgments.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the plaintiff's case. (Para 2 , 4)
2. defendants' positions and claims regarding the property. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis on the status and validity of agreements. (Para 10 , 14 , 22 , 23)
4. substantial legal questions and limitations on claims. (Para 11 , 24 , 25 , 29)
5. dismissal of appeals and confirmation of lower court judgments. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

These Second Appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and decree passed in A.S.Nos.23 & 29 of 2006 dated 15.07.2009.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.350 of 2004 seeking the relief of specific performance. One of the defendants in that suit filed a separate suit in O.S.No.316 of 2004 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Both suits were tried together by the trial Court and by a common judgment dated 29.08.2005, decreed the suit in O.S.No.316 of 2004 and partly allowed the other suit in O.S.No.350 of 2004.

3. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff in O.S.No.350 of 2004 preferred two appeals in A.S.Nos.23 &29 of 2006 before the first appellate Court. Those appeals have also been dismissed by a common judgment dated 15.07.2009. Hence, the present second appeals have been filed challenging the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court.

4. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff in O.S.No.316 of 2004 are in brief :-

The suit ‘A’ schedule property now belongs to the plaintiff and her husband, Natarajan, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The property was acquired by them from the 2^nd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 01.03.1995. The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff’s husband, Natarajan, who had earlier sold it to the 2^nd defendant through a sale deed dated 02.02.1982. Thereafter, on 01.03.1995, the 2nd defendant reconveyed the property in favour of the plaintiff and her husband. Thus, the suit ‘A’ schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff and her husband.

4.1 The 1^st defendant had earlier borrowed Rs.20,000/- with interest from the 2^nd defendant. Later, when the 2^nd defendant reconveyed the suit property to the plaintiff and her husband on 01.01.1995, they agreed to repay this outstanding loan as part of the reconveyance arrangement. Following this, the plaintiff and her husband had met the 1^st defendant several times and offered to repay the loan amount, asking him to accept the money and issue a discharge. However, the 1st defendant refused to receive the amount, which prevented the discharge of the loan.

4.2 The 1^st defendant is in possession of the suit property as a tenant under the plaintiff and her husband, on a monthly rental basis. However, he was never regular in payment of rent and has defaulted in paying rent from June 1997.

4.3 The plaintiff's family consists of her husband, two sons and a daughter. The eldest son got employment, about three months ago and the other two children are studying. The plaintiff's husband is the owner and driver of a lorry, through which he is earning his livelihood. The plaintiff and her family lived in a rented premises, which has become inconvenient due to the expansion of the family. Hence, the plaintiff requires possession of the suit property for her own use and occupation.

4.4 Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff and her husband to the 1^st defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over possession, he postponed the same under some pretext or other. The tenancy was an oral tenancy, which was validly terminated by the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice on 21.10.1997. As per the legal notice, the tenancy stood terminated with effect from 30.11.1997. The 1^st defendant received notice but had sent frivolous return notice with fabricated allegations.

4.5 Plaintiff’s husband, Natarajan, had earlier mortgaged the suit property to the 1st defendant under a mortgage deed dated 04.10.1980 for a sum of Rs.2,500/-. This mortgage was subsequently discharged by the 2nd de