Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1435

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VADAMALAI, J.
S.R.Murugan @ Naveen S.R.Prabhu, S/o. S.R.Rathinasamy Nadar – Appellant
Versus
P.Rajendran, S/o. Ponnambala Nadar – Respondent
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
Decided On : 29-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Vinayak
For the Respondents: Mr.V.R.Venkatesan

Registered sale agreements presumed genuine; admission of execution and substantial advance proves readiness for specific performance; time not essence in immovable property sales; defendants fail to rebut by not proving loan or property overvaluation.

Headnote:(A) Specific Performance - Registered sale agreement - Presumption of genuineness of registered document - Execution admitted by defendants along with receipt of substantial advance of Rs.5,00,000/- out of total Rs.5,50,000/- - Defendants failed to rebut presumption or prove loan transaction by not examining key witness - Plaintiff issued legal notice and telegram within six months, deposited balance amount - Time not essence of contract for immovable property - Readiness and willingness established - Conduct of defendants relevant - Trial Court erred in holding agreement as security for loan based on assumed property value without evidence - Specific performance decreed. (Paras 17, 19, 20-25)

(B) Evidence - Appreciation - Admission in cross-examination that agreement for sale inclusive of trees - No reply to legal notice - Failure to prove value of trees or challenge dismissal of application to fix tree value - Sale consideration reasonable, over three times purchase price in 1993 - Courts cannot interfere with agreed consideration. (Paras 11, 23-24)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff entered registered sale agreement dated 24.05.2002 for suit properties, paid substantial advance, sought specific performance after defendants evaded execution citing lost title deeds. Defendants claimed agreement as security for loan, property worth much more due to trees. Trial Court denied specific performance, granted alternative relief of repayment with interest and charge.

Findings of Court:
Sale agreement genuine for absolute sale; plaintiff entitled to specific performance; defendants to execute sale deed within two months on receipt of balance consideration, failing which plaintiff may seek court execution.

Issues: Whether sale agreement executed for absolute sale or as security for loan; whether plaintiff proved readiness and willingness; whether time essence of contract; correctness of trial Court findings on property value and discretion for specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of registered sale agreement and payment of substantial advance admitted, readiness and willingness presumed; defendants bear onus to rebut genuineness; time not essence unless specified; courts consider conduct and evidence, not assumptions on property value; discretion for specific performance exercised judiciously favouring plaintiff on proved facts.

Result: Appeal allowed; trial Court decree set aside; suit decreed for specific performance.

Table of Content
1. dispute: sale agreement for specific performance or loan security (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. trial court denied specific performance, granted repayment relief (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. appeal frames issues on agreement intent and trial errors (Para 9 , 10)
4. appellant asserts valid sale, readiness, timely notice (Para 11 , 12)
5. defendant conduct weighs in specific performance discretion (Para 13)
6. respondents claim sham agreement for undervalued loan security (Para 14)
7. registered document presumed genuine; loan transaction unproven (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
8. notices establish defendant knowledge, no reply (Para 19)
9. advance payment and deposit prove readiness willingness (Para 20 , 21)
10. substantial advance admits performance readiness (Para 22)
11. consideration adequate despite unproven tree value (Para 23 , 24)
12. time not essence in immovable property sales (Para 25)
13. trial erred; plaintiff entitled specific performance (Para 26)
14. appeal succeeds; decree specific performance execution (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

1.This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2009 made in O.S.No.128 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Dindigul.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Dindigul. The respondents are the defendants in that suit. The suit is filed for the relief of specific performance.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff (appellant herein ) :-

The suit properties are absolute properties of the defendants, who are brothers. The 2^nd defendant, for himself and as the power agent of the 1^st defendant, agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- and executed a sale agreement, dated 24.05.2002, in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants received Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff as advance. The plaintiff should pay the balance of Rs.50,000/- and get the sale deed executed within six months. The defendants have also admitted to handing over the possession of the suit properties along with the trees therein. As the original sale deeds of the defendants were lost, the defendants agreed to prepare certified copies of those deeds and then execute the sale deed. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff asked the defendants to perform their part of the contract on receipt of the balance sale consideration. The defendants have been evading execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff sent a legal notice, dated 20.11.2002, to the defendants calling upon them to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Kodaikanal, to register the sale deed. The defendants evaded the receipt of the notice and managed to return the same on 03.12.2002. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

(b) The case of the defendants (respondents herein):-

The plaintiff has falsely stated that the defendants executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff for selling the suit properties for Rs.5,50,000/- and paid Rs.5,00,000/-. The alleged legal notice and telegram are not known to the defendants and they might have been prepared later for this suit. The 2^nd defendant was doing timber business. He knew one Sanjeevi for the past 10 years. The 1^st defendant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from Sanjeevi and repaid Rs.2,25,000/- and the balance Rs.1,75,000/- has to be paid to him. The said Sanjeevi demanded the balance loan from the defendants. The defendants said that they had no sufficient money and they wanted further loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, the said Sanjeevi and one Kathiresan told the defendants to approach the plaintiff and could obtain a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by executing a sale agreement in respect of the suit property as security. Hence, the defendants obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and execut