Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J.
Doss Naidu, S/o. Ramasamy Naidu - Appellant
Versus
Anthonyraj S/o. Selvaraj - Respondent
SA No. 509 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.8982 of 2016
Decided On : 31-07-2026
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For the Respondent: Mr.V.Nicholas
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness; unexplained delay after the defendant’s denial of the agreement, and failure to prove an admission document as per the Indian Evidence Act, disentitles the equitable relief.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 17, 18, 21 - Admission - Proof of documents - Burden of proof - Delay in filing suit - Denial of agreement - Conduct of plaintiff.
(B) In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Readiness relates to the capacity to pay the consideration, and willingness is reflected from the conduct of the parties. Unexplained delay in instituting the suit after the defendant’s denial of the agreement in a reply notice may disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) A document (Ex.A6) purporting to be an admission by the defendant’s wife cannot be relied upon to conclude that the sale agreement was true and duly executed unless it is proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. The wife was not a party to the suit; the letter was not proved by examining the parties to it; mere admission of the signature on the letter is insufficient to prove its contents. The principles under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the Evidence Act apply. (Paras 15, 15.1, 15.2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 11.12.2002, wherein the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.7,150/- and received Rs.4,000/- as advance. The plaintiff issued a notice on 19.03.2003 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant replied on 26.04.2003 denying the agreement and claiming that the signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers for a loan. The plaintiff issued a second notice on 07.02.2005 and filed the suit on 24.03.2005. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit relying on, inter alia, a letter (Ex.A6) written by the defendant’s wife admitting the agreement. The defendant appealed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. After the defendant’s first reply notice denying the agreement, the plaintiff waited nearly two years to issue a second notice and filed the suit at the fag end of limitation. The explanation of a panchayat was not pleaded or proved. Further, Ex.A6 was not proved in accordance with law; the wife of the defendant was not examined, and the letter could not be treated as an admission under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the Evidence Act. The courts below therefore erred in granting the discretionary relief of specific performance. The concurrent findings were perverse and unsustainable. (Paras 13-15)
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (Paras 13, 14) 2. Whether Ex.A6 (letter of defendant’s wife) can be relied upon to prove the execution of the sale agreement without proper proof as per the Indian Evidence Act? (Paras 15, 15.1, 15.2)
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff’s unexplained delay in filing the suit after the defendant’s denial of the agreement indicates a lack of continuous readiness and willingness. Moreover, a document that is not proved as per the law of evidence cannot be used to establish an admission binding on the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. (Paras 14, 15.3)
Result: Second Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.149 of 2005 dated 08.02.2010, confirmed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.24 of 2011 dated 30.07.2013, are set aside. The suit is dismissed. No costs. (Para 16)
JUDGMENT :
P. Dhanabal, J.
This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam in A.S.No.24 of 2011 dated 30.07.2013, wherein the respondent herein has filed the suit for specific performance of contract as against the appellant herein in O.S.No.149 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthagam and the same was decreed on 08.02.2010. As against the decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred First Appeal and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the First Appeal and confirmed the Judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred the Second Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendant as referred before the trial court.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that the defendant is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff and the defendant entered into sale agreement dated 11.12.2002 and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.7,150/- on the date of sale agreement itself, a sum of Rs.4,000 was paid as advance of sale consideration and the balance amount has to be paid before the Sub Registrar, while registering the sale deed. The plaintiff approached the defendant to complete sale transaction on 15.03.2003 with the remaining sale price, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 19.03.2003 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed after receipt of balance amount. The second notice was issued on 07.02.2005 to the defendant, but the defendant issued reply notice stating that he has issued reply to the previous notice of the plaintiff dated 19.03.2003 and informed him as he is not willing to complete the sale of consideration, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. The case of the defendant before the trial court is that the suit is not maintainable and the agreement of sale is specifically denied. The defendant had never agreed nor intended to sell any property to the plaintiff. The defendant has sent a detailed reply on 26.04.2003, for the notice issued by the plaintiff and also another reply dated 12.02.2005.
The suit agreement has been fabricated and there is no cause of action and the alleged cause of action is false. In fact, the defendant had money dealing with the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.4,000/- as a hand loan couple of years ago prior to the suit notice, at that time, the plaintiff had obtained signatures in the blank papers with the revenue stamps and now based on the above said papers, the suit agreement has been fabricated, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both sides, the trial court has recasted the following issues for trial:-
“1. Is the sale agreement dated 11.02.2002 is a fabricated and created document?
2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
3. Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract
4. What are all the other reliefs and cost plaintiff is entitled for?”
Before the trial court on the side of the plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and marked Exhibits A.1 to A.6 and on the side of the defendant, witness, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exhibits B.1 and B.2. Thereafter, the trial court decreed the suit.
6. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred Appeal Suit in A.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam on various grounds and the defendant also filed a petition in I.A.Nos.7 and 21 of 2013 to receive the additional documents, thereafter, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for determination:-
1.Whether the IA No.7 of 2013 has to be allowed?
2.Whether the I.A.No.51 of 2013 to be allowed?
3.Whether the suit pronote dated 11.12.2
