Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2277

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
D. Gangadevi – Appellant
Versus
Selvam – Respondent
S.A. (MD) No. 611 of 2020, C.M.P. (MD) No. 6478 of 2020
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Arun Jayatram
For the Respondents: S.S. Prabhasini, M. Laxmi Mahendra

High Court second appeal under S.100 CPC confined to substantial questions of law; cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings on genuineness, readiness for specific performance.

Headnote:The suit sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 14.11.2000 under Section 100 CPC, Specific Relief Act provisions including S.16(c) requiring readiness and willingness, and CPC O.41 R.22. Essential facts involved an advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- against total consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- with a two-year performance period, prior mortgage, and defendant's claim of coercion for loan security. Courts below found the agreement genuine but declined specific performance due to lack of continuous readiness, directing refund of advance with interest. Key issues framed: whether plaintiff entitled to specific performance, validity of sale agreement, readiness and willingness under S.16(c). Ratio: High Court jurisdiction under S.100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law; cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse concurrent findings without such questions (AIR 2019 SC 1441; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273). Document's legal effect as security, not sale, and unexplained delay negated enforcement; no material ignored or erroneous inferences drawn. Second appeal dismissed, confirming appellate decree refusing specific performance but directing defendant to refund Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest till suit filing and 6% thereafter till realisation; parties to bear own costs.

Table of Content
1. suit history and lower court proceedings summary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8)
2. parties' conflicting claims on sale agreement. (Para 4 , 5)
3. s.100 cpc limits second appeal to substantial law questions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 27 , 28)
4. agreement held as loan security, not genuine sale. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. lack of readiness and unexplained delay under s.16(c). (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
6. limits on relief beyond pleadings; appeal dismissed. (Para 25 , 26 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.20 of 2018, dated 17.07.2020, on the file of III Additional District Court, Trichirappalli, partly modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.113 of 2005, dated 30.01.2018, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and she filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli claiming the relief of specific performance of sale agreement dated 14.11.2000 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The defendant entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-, fixing the period for performance as two years. The parties executed the sale agreement on 14.11.2000, and on the very same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Upon receipt of the said advance amount, the defendant agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- and execute the sale deed within the agreed period.

(b) Though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the defendant had been evading execution of the sale deed even after the expiry of the stipulated period of two years. The plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 05.11.2002 to be issued calling upon the defendant to perform his part of the agreement, and the same was duly received by the defendant. The plaintiff has at all times been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The suit has been filed within three years from the date of expiry of the two-year period stipulated for execution of the sale deed under the agreement dated 14.11.2000. Since the defendant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the above suit seeking the reliefs of specific performance and permanent injunction.

5. The defence of the defendant, in short, is as follows:

(a) The averments in the plaint that the defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 14.11.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of the agreement are false and untenable. The defendant never intended to sell the suit property. Even prior to the alleged sale agreement, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and, owing to financial crisis in his business, was unable to repay the principal amount. Hence, the plaintiff compelled the defendant to execute a sale agreement in her favour in respect of the suit property, assuring him that she would not insist upon execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff and her husband further assured the defendant that the sale agreement would be cancelled and terminated upon repayment of the loan amount. Believing their representation and in view of the close relationship between the parties, the defendant acceded to their demand. At the time of borrowing the loan, the plaintiff and her husband had also obtained the defendant’s signatures in several blank promissory note forms, stamp papers and plain papers.

(b) The defendant was reg