Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
T.R. Jayapal – Appellant
Versus
K. Kamalesh – Respondent
Specific Performance - Agreement Validity - Specific Relief Act - Sections 14, 16(3) - The court determined the validity of the sale agreement for specific performance, interpreting the necessity of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness along with mandatory court permission required for selling a minor's property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement for property owned by a minor. The trial court granted alternative relief but rejected specific performance, leading the plaintiff to appeal the decision.
Issues: Whether the sale agreement is valid and enforceable, if the plaintiff was ready to fulfill the contract terms, and whether the defendant acted with clean hands in the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that readiness and willingness to perform, alongside disclosure of required permissions, are essential for specific performance, rejecting the defendant's allegations of excess consideration as unfounded.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the trial court's judgment is set aside, granting specific performance of the sale agreement.
JUDGMENT
This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.The Plaintiff in the Suit is the Appellant herein.
3.The Plaintiff filed Suit in O.S.No.47 of 2018 for the relief of specific performance or any alternate relief. After trial, the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri rejected the main relief of specific performance, however, granted an alternate relief of refund of Rs.5,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum. As against the rejection of the main relief of specific performance, the Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal against the grant of alternate relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Defendant has not filed any Appeal or cross Appeal or cross objection.
4.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
5.On the date of filing of the Suit, the original Defendant viz., Kamalesh is a minor and hence Suit was filed against the minor represented by his biological Mother viz., Selvi @ Kalaiselvi and on attaining the majority, necessary application was filed to declare him as major and causetitle was amended as per the order dated 07.02.2022 in I.A.No.4 of 2022.
6.The present Suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement Ex.A4/registered sale agreement dated 07.08.2014 entered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
7.The brief facts which leads to filing of the Suit is as follows:
7(a).The Plaint proceeds on the basis of that the Plaintiff has a plan to setup a fuel station, hence he approached the Defendant and his family members and expressed his interest to purchase the suit schedule property and adjoining two properties each measuring to an extent of 59 cents.
7(b).Plaintiff purchased the 1st property measuring to an extent of 59 cents from the step brother of the Defendant by way of registered sale deed dated 12.06.2014 as document No.1909 of 2014 in the office of sub registrar of Uthangarai. The total sale consideration of sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the step brother of the Defendant.
7(c).The 2nd property (which is adjacent to the property already purchased by the Plaintiff) is the present suit schedule property which belongs to the Defendant who was a minor at that time. The 3rd property which is adjacent to the present suit schedule property, also belongs to the step brother of the Defendant, for which the Plaintiff entered into a sale agreement dated 12.6.2014 with the step brother and subsequently filed a separate suit for specific performance (OS No: 46 of 2018) on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff as against which the step brother of the Defendant had preferred appeal before this Court (AS No: 363 of 2021).
8.Had there been a joint trial or atleast simultaneous trial, such a divergent view would not have been possible. The respective advocates ought to have filed a memo for joint trial or atleast for simultaneous trial. For the reasons best known the Suit in O.S.No.46 of 2018 was taken up by the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri and the same was disposed on 23.04.2021. However, O.S.No.47 of 2018, which is the next suit, was taken by the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, and thereafter, judgment was also pronounced on 23.03.2023. By the time the present Appeal was reap for argument.
9.Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff brought to the notice of this Court that initially argument was heard in A.S.No.363 of 2021 and judgment was reserved on 18.03.2024 and thereafter, in A.S.No.585 of 2023 arguments on both sides was heard and orders also reserved on 27.03.2024.
10.Since separate trial was taken place, this Court has taken sufficient caution not to intermingle the evidence. However, taking note of the entirety of the circumstances and the pleas taken by the respective land owners, treating it as a si
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
