Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14794
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
A.G.DAKSHINAMOORTHY – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNAMOORTHY – Respondent
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove the validity of the agreement and their readiness to perform; failure on either front leads to dismissal.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Act Section List - Specific Relief Act, Section 16(3) - The court examined the validity of the sale agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform. It found the agreement dubious as key owners did not sign, affecting enforceability.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for a property he claims to have contracted to buy from several defendants. Defendants claimed that the plaintiff's agreement was fake and they had sold the property to new purchasers.
Issues: Whether the sale agreement is valid, whether the plaintiff is ready to perform the contract, if the new purchasers are bona fide, and if the trial court's decision is sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving the authenticity of the sale agreement lies with the plaintiff who failed to establish its validity or his readiness to perform as per Section 16(3) of the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment.
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2006 before the Additional District Court, Cuddalore seeking specific performance of the suit sale agreement Ex.A1. The defendants 5, 8, 9 & 10 filed written statement and others have remained ex-parte.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that they have entered into agreement of sale with all the defendants except defendants 9&10 who are the owners of the property. The property originally belonged to one Vaiyapuri and his son Pakkiri died. The defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Vaiyapuri and defendants 5 to 8 are the legal heirs of the pre-deceased son Pakkiri. Defendants 9 & 10 are the purchasers from Defendants 1 to 8.
3 (a) As per the plaint, the plaintiff and all the defendants 1 to 8 have entered into Ex.A1 - suit sale agreement on 23.06.2006 for sale of the suit schedule property and the sale consideration was Rs.11,40,000/- and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Duration for completion of the sale agreement is five months. Since Manjula Devi - D8 was admitted in hospital for delivery and Vijayalakshmi - D5, mother of Manjula Devi accompanied to hospital, they have not signed Ex.A1 agreement.
(b) The defendants 1 to 8 have executed General Power of Attorney Ex.B1 on 20.07.2006, having came to know the same, he issued a notice by way of telegram under Exs.A7 & A8 to Manimaran, the Power of Attorney holder. Despite the same, Manimaran, General Power of Attorney of the other defendants had executed a sale deed Ex.B18 and Ex. B24 in favour of his wife Uma Rani and her brother Valavan on 27.07.2006. Since the parties are getting ready for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kurincipadi, the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit on the very same day, i.e.,27.07.2006.
4. From the records, I find that the suit and the sale deeds Exs.B18 and B25 are on the very same date. The signatory to the Ex.A1 - sale agreement have remained ex-parte. While D5 - Vijayalakshmi and D8 - Manjula Devi had filed written statement alleging that they are not the signatory to the said suit sale agreement and hence the same is not binding upon them and also pleaded that the suit sale agreement is bogus one, created after execution of the sale deed in favour of Defendants 9 & 10. The defendants 9 & 10 have filed separate written statements alleging that they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and Ex.A1 was subsequently created for the purpose of this case.
5. On bahalf of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and the scribe of Ex.A1 suit sale agreement (unregistered) was examined as P.W.2 Venkatesan and P.W.3 - Sivaji and P.W.4 -Udayasuriyan are the attestors of Ex.A1 - suit sale agreement. Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, 8th defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and purchasers 9th and 10th defendants - Umarani and Valavan respectively were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and Manimaran who is the husband of D.W.2 and Power of Attorney holder and attestor of the Sale Deed in favour of D9 and D10 (P.W.2 and P.W.3) is examined as D.W.5.
6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had came to the conclusion that the co-owner of the property were not signatory to the Ex.A1 suit sale agreement and Ex.A1 agreement is doubtful and the sale in favour of the defendants 9 & 10 is true and valid and is not hit by doctrine of lis pendence and the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract accordingly dismissed the suit and hence the appeal.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, this Court has arrived at the following points for determination-
(i) Whether the suit sale agreement is true and valid as pleaded by the plaintiff (or) bogus, as pleaded by the defendants?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
(iii) Whether the agreement Ex.B1 is binding upon defendants
