Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice P. VADAMALAI
Balaguru – Appellant
Versus
Pandiyan – Respondent
Title - Property Dispute - Evidence Act 1872 (Sec 115), Transfer of Property Act 1882 (Sec 41), Indian Contract Act 1872 (Sec 14, 20, 29) - The court found the sale agreement void due to lack of title in the transferor, affirming the principle that no one can convey what they do not own.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose from a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction by plaintiffs against defendant, who claimed ownership via a hire purchase agreement. Plaintiffs contended a valid sale agreement existed, while defendant asserted he had no title to convey.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale agreement was invalid as the defendant was not the rightful owner at the time of the agreement. The ruling affirmed that a non-owner cannot transfer title. A payment of Rs.50,000 by plaintiffs was acknowledged, entitling them to reimbursement.
Issues: Whether the courts below erred in upholding the validity of the sale agreement without the defendant's title, and whether established legal principles regarding the transfer of property were misapplied.
Ratio Decidendi: A fundamental legal principle was reaffirmed: an individual without ownership cannot pass title to another, thus rendering the sale agreement void and unenforceable under the law.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit and affirming the defendant's ownership of the property.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated
30.11.2021 passed in A.S.No.48 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2020 passed in O.S.No.576 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur.
2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.576 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. The appellant/defendant filed the counter claim in that suit for declaration that the suit property belonged to the appellant/defendant.
3. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendant in O.S.No.576 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is bearing Door No.5-6/113/91 in Plot No.24 in S.No.83/3 measuring 3 cents out of large extent acre 4 cents 22, T.Kunnathur Village, Peraiyur Taluk & Sub-District, Madurai South. The house was constructed by Sri Murugan Weavers Cooperative Society, T.Kunnathoor in the year 1993 and allotted to the defendant. The defendant approached the plaintiffs and entered into unregistered sale agreement, dated 15.05.2002 in respect of suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and handed over the suit property to the plaintiffs. The defendant promised that he would register the sale deed after he gets full rights official from the society. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property by paying house tax, water tax and electricity consumption charges. The defendant got a registered sale deed on 11.06.2014. When the plaintiffs asked for execution of sale deed, the defendant refused. Hence, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 30.06.2014 and since there was no reply, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
5. It is the case of the defendant that the suit property originally belonged to Sri Murugan Weavers Cooperative Society, T.Kunnathoor and it was allotted to the defendant under hire purchase agreement, dated
01.06.1990. As per that agreement, the defendant has to repay the loan on monthly installments. Since the defendant faced a financial crisis, he was unable to pay monthly installments. Hence, the defendant permitted the plaintiffs to reside in the suit house allotted to the defendant and asked them to pay monthly EMI to the society on behalf of the defendant and hand over the same to the defendant on getting a registered sale deed from the society. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are residing in the suit property on permissive possession by monthly EMI as rent. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiffs falsely changed the record in their name. The defendant got a registered document only on 10.06.2014 in his name. But, the plaintiffs failed to hand over the property to the defendant. The plaintiffs are now trespassers. Therefore, the defendant filed the counter claim that the suit property belonged to the defendant.
6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, five witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 5 and marked 10 exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined himself as D.W.1 and marked 2 exhibits as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.
7. After hearing both sides, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur decreed the suit in O.S.No.576 of 2014 and dismissed the counter claim by passing judgment and decree dated 28.08.2020. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.48 of 2020 before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam. The First Appellate Court after hearing both passed judgment dated 30.11.2021 dismissing the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.576 of 2014.
8. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the appellant/defendant has preferred this Second Appeal a
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
