Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
K.Mohammed Hanifa (Died) – Appellant
Versus
M.Mohammed Mustaba – Respondent
A.S(MD)No.202 of 2015|CMP(MD)No.12832 of 2024|O.S.No.61 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Vaigunth
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
The court affirmed that readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance, emphasizing that the existence of a sale agreement and the plaintiff's intent to perform must be established.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against decree for specific performance - Appellants denied existence of sale agreement dated 06.04.2008 for Rs.49,00,000/-; claimed it was a loan document - Respondents proved execution of sale agreement and their readiness to perform - Court held time is not of the essence of the contract; appellants failed to prove their defense - Judgment of Trial Court upheld. (Paras 26, 27)
(B) Readiness and Willingness - Essential for specific performance - Respondents demonstrated readiness through legal notice and willingness by approaching appellants multiple times - Appellants failed to establish their claims regarding the nature of the agreement. (Paras 19, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 06.04.2008, alleging that the appellants had received an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- and failed to execute the sale deed despite requests. The appellants contended it was a loan document and denied the sale agreement. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Court found the respondents proved the sale agreement's existence and their readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under it. The appellants' claims were not substantiated. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the sale agreement existed and whether the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. (Paras 4, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the evidence presented by the respondents established the sale agreement and their readiness to perform, while the appellants failed to prove their claims regarding the nature of the document. (Paras 19, 20, 21)
Result: Appeal dismissed; appellants directed to execute the sale deed in favor of the respondents. (Paras 26, 27)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondents filed for specific performance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellants denied the sale agreement. (Para 3) |
| 3. trial court framed issues for the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. appellants argue readiness and willingness. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. respondents assert their readiness and willingness. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. court analyzes agreement nature. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court confirms readiness and willingness. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. appellate court re-evaluates trial findings. (Para 21 , 23) |
| 9. application for additional evidence dismissed. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 10. court orders execution of sale deed. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN., J.
The respondents herein filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants in O.S.No.61 of 2011 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The suit came to be decreed on 10.03.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the suit have filed the present appeal before this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments in the suit, are that the suit properties belonged to the appellants. The first appellant is the father. The appellants 2 to 3 and the respondents are brothers. The appellants agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of the respondents under a sale agreement dated 06.04.2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs.49,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents as an advance, i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.2,00,000/- by way of two cheques, and agreed to execute the sale deed within two months from the date of the agreement. One of the conditions was that the appellants had to measure the property with the help of the surveyor and execute the sale deed. When the respondents made a request on 25.05.2008 to take the necessary steps to measure the suit property with the help of the surveyor, the appellants requested one more month. Again, on 25.06.2008, the respondents made a request to the appellants to survey the lands and also expressed their willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.44,00,000/-. However, the appellants did not come forward to perform their part of the contract. In the meanwhile, the respondents came to know that the appellants were trying to alienate the suit property to third parties for a higher price by suppressing the above sale agreement. Therefore, the respondents sent a notice on 06.08.2008 to the appellants, calling upon them to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. Despite receiving the legal notice, the appellants neither sent a reply nor come forward to execute the sale deed. On 21.03.2011, the respondents came to know through their relative, one Jaffer Ali, that the appellants had tried to alienate the property to third parties for a higher price. Therefore, the respondents filed a suit. Pending the suit, the first appellant died on 26.10.2012. Since the other appellants, sons of the deceased appellant, were already on record as defendants 2 & 3, his four daughters were impleaded as defendants 4 to 7 in the said suit, and the suit was proceeded.
3. The brief facts of the case of the appellants, as per the written statement filed by the appellants, are as follows:
3.1. The appellants denied the sale agreement dated 06.04.2008 and also the total consideration of Rs. 49,00,000/- and the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as advance. They denied the execution of the sale agreement. Regarding the suit property, there was a civil suit filed in this regard and a second appeal also pending. The first appellant was in dire need of money for his daughter's marriage. Therefore, the deceased first appellant sought financial assistance from the respondents and borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a loan, for which the deceased first appellant executed a registered loan document as security in favour of the respondents. After receiving the advocate's notice on 06.08.2008, the appellants came to know that the respondents might have forged the loan document as an agreeme
