2026 Supreme(Mad) 1122

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.B. Balaji, J.
Karuppaiah (died) – Appellant
Versus
Mani - Respondent
SA(MD) No.521 of 2017 and CMP(MD).No. 11266 and 2017
Decided On : 05-06-2026

In a suit for specific performance, non-deposit of balance consideration into court before suit is not fatal when the property has been fraudulently alienated. Appellate courts shall not interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding readiness and willingness or the genuineness of an agreement unless such findings are perverse.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Sections 16(c) and 20 - Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Readiness and willingness - Whether mandatory to deposit balance consideration into Court prior to filing suit - It is not necessary to deposit the entire balance sale consideration into Court at the threshold when the claimant is put on notice that the property has been alienated to a third party, and the claimant is challenging said alienation - Non-compliance with alleged pre-condition of deposit is not fatal when the claimant has demonstrated availability of funds within the stipulated period. (Paras 13, 18, 20, 21)

(B) Evidence Act - Sections 45 and 73 - Appreciation of evidence - Comparison of signatures - Scope of interference in Second Appeal - Appellate court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or contrary to law - Mere possibility of another view is not sufficient to warrant interference under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure - Expert opinion should be considered alongside other evidence but is not conclusive per se. (Paras 24, 25, 35)

(C) Appeal - Res judicata - Non-filing of separate appeal against dismissal of counterclaim - When the controversy involved is one and the same in a common judgment, the principle of res judicata does not operate to bar the challenge of the primary decree in an appeal. (Paras 28, 29, 33)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought specific performance of an agreement of sale and a declaration that a subsequent sale deed executed by the owner in favor of a third party was void. The defendants contended that the underlying agreement was a loan transaction rather than a sale agreement and that a discharge receipt had been issued. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found the agreement to be a genuine sale transaction and the plaintiff to be ready and willing, decreeing the suit and dismissing the counterclaim.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the defendants failed to prove the loan transaction or the validity of the alleged discharge receipt. Expert evidence corroborated that signatures on the disputed receipt differed from admitted signatures. The plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated financial readiness within the contractual period. The Court maintained that given the circumstances of the collusive alienation, the failure to deposit funds into court prior to the suit was not a fatal defect.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff established readiness and willingness; whether the agreement was a loan transaction; whether the omission to file a separate appeal against the dismissed counterclaim invalidated the proceedings; and whether the Court correctly scrutinized the expert evidence and the conduct of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance is a discretionary relief where readiness and willingness must be established; once established, technical objections regarding fund deposits in the context of fraudulent alienation do not preclude the relief. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of an agreement cannot be disturbed in second appeals unless perverse, and the non-filing of a separate appeal for a counterclaim does not prevent an appeal against a common judgment on the same controversy.

Result: Second Appeal is dismissed.