Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
C.Mohandas – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar Jain – Respondent
Appeal Suit. No.531 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. V. Raghavachari
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Bijai Sunder
The court ruled that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and failure to do so, along with significant delay, can result in denial of relief, especially against a bona fide purchaser.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10 and 20 - Suit for specific performance - Decree for specific performance granted by Trial Court set aside - Plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with first Defendant but delayed in filing suit, leading to the fourth Defendant acquiring property - Court found Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had no valid claim against the bona fide purchaser. (Paras 1, 11, 18, 20, 24, 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the first Defendant for a property, paying an advance of Rs.5,50,000/- out of a total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-. The first Defendant later sold the property to the fourth Defendant, leading to the Plaintiff's suit for specific performance. (Paras 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the Plaintiff had failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract and that the fourth Defendant was a bona fide purchaser. The trial judge's decision was deemed perverse. (Paras 30, 34)
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance given the delay and the subsequent sale to the fourth Defendant. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that time is of the essence in contracts, and the Plaintiff's delay in asserting his rights disentitled him to relief. The fourth Defendant's bona fide purchase was upheld. (Paras 20, 30)
Result: Appeal allowed; the decree for specific performance was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. (Para 34)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by the fourth defendant (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations and reasoning (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. final conclusion and order (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT
This First Appeal has been filed to set aside Judgment and decree dated20.12.2011 passed in O.S. No. 42 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Poonammallee.
2. The fourth Defendant in O.S. No. 42 of 2010 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee is the Appellant before this Court.
3. The first Respondent in this Appeal is the Plaintiff, who had instituted the said suit in O.S. No. 42 of 2010 for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Directing the first Defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule mentioned property to and in favour of the Plaintiff on payment of the balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- by the Plaintiff to the first Defendant within a day to be specified by this Honourable Court and in default directing the court official of this Honourable Court to execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule mentioned property to and in favour of the Plaintiff on deposit of the said balance sale consideration.
(ii) Directing the Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property.
(ii) Alternatively, if the Plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance, directing the first Defendant to repay the advance amount of Rs.5,50,000/- paid by him towards sale agreement with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of agreement i.e., 20.07.2005 till the date of realisation.
(iv) directing the Defendants to pay the liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of agreement dated 20.07.2005.
(v) Declaring the sale deed No. 10090/2006 dated 22.11.2006 in favour of the fourth Defendant as null and void.
(vi) Directing the Defendants to pay the costs of this proceedings to the Plaintiff.”
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Appeal shall be referred to as per their litigative status in the suit as 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendants' as the case may be.
5. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:
5.1. The first Defendant was the owner of the suit scheduled property bearing Plot No.3, Door No.55, Defence Enclave, Masuthi Street, Muktha Pudupet Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District comprised in S.No.38/4, measuring 2400 sq. ft. For purchase of this property, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale dated 20.07.2005 with the first Defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and it was registered as Doc. No. 4226/2005 on the file of Sub Registrar, Avadi. On the date of agreement, the Plaintiff paid Rs.4,50,000/- and subsequently, on 09.12.2007, another sum of Rs.50,000/- was received by the first Defendant, which was also duly endorsed in the agreement of sale itself. Again, on 14.07.2008, the first Defendant received additional sum of Rs.50,000/- and thus a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration as against the total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- fixed in the agreement of sale.
5.2. According to the Plaintiff, the first Defendant, in the agreement dated 20.07.2005, gave a specific undertaking in clause 4 for obtaining the encumbrance certificate. Further, as per clause 7 of agreement, the first Defendant assured that the property is free from any encumbrance except mortgage loan with the LIC Housing Finance Limited. Believing the representation of the first Defendant to be true, the Plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to proceed with the sale transaction, however, the first Defendant gave evasive reply for execution of sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff got suspici
