Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
Chinnapappa – Appellant
Versus
A.S. Palanivel – Respondent
AS Nos. 637, 638 of 2018, CMP No. 5647 of 2023
Decided On : 21-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals from trial court suits on sale agreement disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. sale agreement conditional on tnscb conveyance for non-residential portion. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. trial court decreed specific performance for residential portion. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. parties contend on contract enforceability and part performance. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. cmp for additional evidence dismissed as irrelevant. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 6. sale agreement contingent on uncertain tnscb conveyance; unenforceable for item ii. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. mandatory injunction for item ii unsustainable under specific relief act. (Para 28) |
| 8. no part performance; defendant remains tenant for item ii. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. partial specific performance confirmed for item i. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. excess consideration adjusted towards rent arrears for item ii. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. as 638 dismissed; as 637 partly allowed with modifications. (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
1. The present appeals, A.S. Nos. 637 and 638 of 2018, arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 14.03.2018 passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S. Nos. 6774 and 6773 of 2015 respectively.
2. A.S. No. 638 of 2018 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 6773 of 2015, while A.S. No. 637 of 2018 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015.
3. The suit in O.S. No. 6773 of 2015 was instituted by the vendor seeking a direction to the purchaser to return the title deeds relating to Item I of the suit schedule property, and for a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the vendor’s possession of the suit property.
4. The suit in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 was filed by the purchaser against the vendors seeking execution of a sale deed in respect of Item No. I of the property, and a mandatory injunction directing the vendors to obtain a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and thereafter execute a sale deed in favour of the purchaser in respect of Item No. II of the property, in terms of the sale agreement dated 15.12.2005.
5. The trial Court tried both suits jointly and, by a common judgment, declined to order return of the documents/title deeds and dismissed O.S. No. 6773 of 2015, while granting the relief of specific performance as prayed for in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 and decreeing the said suit.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court in O.S. No. 6773 of 2015.
7. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015, who is the respondent in both the appeals, filed C.M.P. No. 5647 of 2023 in A.S. No. 637 of 2018 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to receive an additional document, namely, a certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.09.2015.
8. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and relate to the same subject matter in both appeals, and as the averments in the plaint in one suit substantially correspond to the averments in the written statement in the other, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
9. Brief contents of the plaint in O.S. No. 6773 of 2015 and the written statement in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 are as follows: The suit property bears Door No. 5, Old No. 3, Kamarajar Salai, Kanniappa Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, measuring about 990 sq. ft. The residential portion of the property was conveyed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2002, whereas the non-residential portion had not yet been conveyed by the Board. The defendant, who is in occupation of the non-residential portion as a tenant, was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,730/-. The plaintiff and her legal heirs entered into a sale agreement dated 15.12.2005 with the defendant for sale of the entire property for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,50,000/-, under which a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid a
Sale agreement for property with owned and expectant portions is contingent and unenforceable for unowned part if conveyance event fails; specific performance limited to divisible owned portion with ....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was established in this case despite claims....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents' claim of possession and tenancy was contradictory and not supported by evidence, and that the decree obtained by the first re....
The court reaffirmed that equitable relief via specific performance requires proven readiness and legitimate title, emphasizing the importance of the parties' conduct, especially regarding collusion ....
Agreement to Sell – Protection provided under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is only a shield, and can only be resorted to as a right of defence – A person who is deemed to be in unla....
A defendant who fails to file a cross-objection or cross-appeal against adverse findings in the trial court cannot challenge those findings in a second appeal to obtain a more favorable position than....
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
