Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14839
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
R.Sivasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
M.Rabik Kadhar Mohaideen – Respondent
The failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness in a specific performance claim negates the entitlement to relief under the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Property Sale Agreement - Sections under Specific Relief Act - The court analyzed the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove their readiness, affecting the entitlement to relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a property sale agreement after making multiple payments but claimed the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite full payment. The defendant contested the adequacy of payments and claimed the plaintiff was not ready to perform.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, relying too heavily on a police complaint instead of formal notices or evidence to substantiate claims of ongoing readiness for the transaction.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract and entitled to specific performance or alternative relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that for specific performance, the plaintiff must show readiness and willingness, which was not sufficiently evidenced, leading to the denial of specific relief.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment favoring specific performance was set aside; the defendant was ordered to return an advance of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest.
J U D G M E N T
This Appeal Suit has been filed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.152 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Tenkasi, Wherein respondents herein has filed a suit as against the appellant for the relief of specific performance of contract and the suit was decreed.
2. As against the decree and judgment the defendant has preferred this present appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Trial Court.
4. The gist of the plaint averments are as follows:
The plaint schedule property belongs to the defendants through sale deed dated 19.03.2014. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into agreement for sale of property on 04.04.2017. As per agreement sale price was fixed as Rs.20,00,000/- and on the date of agreement itself the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants as advance of sale price. The remaining amount to be paid within three months and the plaintiff has to get the sale deed from the defendants after repayment of balance sale consideration. Thereafter on 20.06.2017 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and also the issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank but the defendants failed to present the cheque for collection and then the same was returned to the plaintiff . Again on 29.07.2017 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants and again on
04.04.2018 as instructed by the defendants the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to one Antony who was oothidhar(mortgagor) in the suit property. Thereafter the plaintiff demanded for execution of sale deed but the defendant evaded from execution of sale deed, thereby the plaintiff had given a complaint as against the defendant and the First Information Report has been registered as against the defendant on 10.10.2018 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,70,000/- but the defendant only evading from performing his part of contract. Hence filed the suit.
5. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is admitted that the suit properties belongs to the defendants and they entered into agreement date 04.04.2017 but the averment that he received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance is false. Infact on the date the defendants received only Rs.3,50,000/- as advance of sale price. Again on 20.06.2017 the defendants received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and also issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- dated
28.06.2017. When the cheque was presented for collection on 29.06.2017 the same was returned as insufficient funds. When the same was intimated to the plaintiff he stated that at present he had no money and since three months time was lapsed he will sell the property to some other person and will pay the amount. Thereafter he took the defendant to one Arafa gold shop on 29.07.2017 and paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. The above said facts are suppressed by the plaintiff. Further averment that the defendant mortgaged the property to one Antony for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and the plaintiff settled a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the same Antony are all denied. Infact the Antony was a oothidhar(mortgagor) and he entered into oothi (mortgage) deed on 17.11.2010 for three years and paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. Thereafter in the year 2013 there was an agreement between them. As per the agreement the said Antony was permitted to reside in the property for a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as rent and the oothi(mortgage) amount was deducted for the rent for remaining period. There was a dispute between the defendant and the said Antony, thereby he gave complaint before the Courtallam Police Station and there was a compromis
