Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ.
T.Meyyappan - Appellants
Versus
C.Selvan – Respondents
AS No. 924 of 2018 and CMP No.23611 of 2018
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For the Respondents: Mr.S.A.Mohamed Mubarak

The court confirmed that agreements for sale are binding regardless of non-registration, emphasizing the importance of a party's readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10 and 14 - Registration Act, 1908 - Proviso to Section 49 - Agreement for sale - Suit for specific performance filed, defendant's refusal to execute sale deed due to alleged lack of readiness and willingness of plaintiff - Trial Court found agreements valid and binding, plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness by depositing balance sale consideration - Appeal dismissed, trial court affirmed. (Paras 30, 37, 40)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff entered an agreement for sale of property, paid advance, and later issued notice for sale deed execution. Defendants claimed non-readiness from the plaintiff; however, evidence indicated plaintiff had funds available for balance payment. (Paras 4-8)

Findings of Court:
Agreements deemed valid despite non-registration; Proviso to Section 49 allows them to be considered as contracts. Plaintiff showed willingness via deposit and notice. (Paras 36-38)

Issues: Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform agreements? Was time of essence in agreement? (Paras 27, 29)

Ratio Decidendi: Time could not be considered as essence due to defendants' actions; plaintiff's state of readiness demonstrated effectively with bank statements, validating the claim for specific performance. (Paras 30, 37)

Result: Appeal Suit dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. facts about the agreement and background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' arguments regarding performance and readiness (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
3. court's analysis of validity and performance of agreement (Para 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. determination of necessary legal principles regarding agreements (Para 40)

Judgment :

C.V.Karthikeyan J.

The defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Gopichettipalayam at Erode, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2018 have filed the present Appeal Suit.

2.The suit in O.S.No.23 of 2016 had been filed by the respondent, C.Selvam, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale or in the alternate to refund the advance amount of Rs.33,42,000/- together with interest and also future interest till realization and also to create a charge over the suit properties as security for the recovery of the advance amount and also for costs of the suit.

3.By judgment dated 06.08.2018, the suit was decreed, necessitating the defendants, T.Meiyappan and T.Venugopalan to file the present appeal.

O.S.No.23 of 2016 ( III Additional District Court, Gopichettipalayam at Erode):

4.In the plaint it had been stated that the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to the defendants and that on 14.09.2015, the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff, to convey the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.58,08,000/- at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. An advance of Rs.20,00,000/- had been paid. The agreement was also reduced into writing.

5.In the agreement, it had been stipulated that the balance sale consideration of Rs.38,08,000/- should be paid within a period of three months and then the sale deed should be executed. The defendants had also agreed to measure the property before the execution of the sale deed. It was further provided that if the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the agreement, then the defendants could forfeit the advance amount, and if the defendants were to fail to come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff could file a suit seeking specific performance.

6.The plaintiff contended that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration but that the defendants protracted measuring the property and fixing the boundaries. However, on 18.12.2015, the defendants received a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and entered into another agreement and extended the time for performance of the contract till the last date of January 2016. The plaintiff contended that he had been calling upon the defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed and to receive the balance sale consideration. Since they did not do so, the plaintiff had issued a notice on 14.04.2016 expressing readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and calling upon the defendant to come over to the Sub-Registrar Office, Sathyamangalam on 21.04.2016 to execute the sale deed and receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.28,08,000/-.

7.The defendants issued a reply notice on 20.04.2016 refusing to execute the sale deed. They claimed that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that the plaintiff did not have sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration. It was contended that time was the essence of the contract and the defendants were entitled to forfeit the advance amount.

8.It had been further contended in the plaint that the 1^st defendant along with another individual U.Selvaraj sought enhancement of the sale consideration to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre which was accepted by the plaintiff, but thereafter not responded by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were deliberately avoiding execution of the sale deed and under those circumstances filed the suit seeking specific performance or in the alternate for return of the advance amount.

9.In the