Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J
S.Shahul Hameed – Appellant
Versus
Benazir Banu – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT NO.48 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Mahesh
For the Respondents: Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain for M/s.N.A.Nissar Ahmed
The burden of proof for execution and enforceability of a Sale Agreement rests with the party seeking specific performance, particularly when the seller's mental capacity is in question.
Headnote:This appeal relates to the enforcement of a Sale Agreement executed by T.M.A.Kathija Cani under Islamic Law after her death, contested on grounds of mental capacity and willingness. The Trial Court upheld the Sale Agreement, ruling the plaintiff's readiness to perform her contractual obligations. The core issues involved the authenticity of the Agreement and actions of the parties. The appellate court found it necessary to balance the legitimacy of the Sale Agreement against the subsequent sale and the readiness aspect required for specific performance, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. Resultantly, the Appeal Suit stands allowed. The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The Original Suit is dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of inheritance and property ownership (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning the execution and legality of the sale agreement (Para 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. discussion on evidence and mental capacity of the seller (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 4. ruling on validity of sale agreement and plaintiff's readiness (Para 18 , 19 , 24) |
| 5. final decision regarding the appeal and dismissal of original suit (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated November 4, 2015 passed in O.S.No.9 of 2012 by the 'District Court, Karaikal' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the first defendant therein has filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' ['CPC' for short].
2.For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3.The Suit Property was originally owned by one O.A.Shamsudeen Maricar. After his demise, his wife - M.A.S.Kathija Cani, his four sons - S.Shahul Hameed (first defendant), S.Abdul Salam, S.Sulthan Abdul Kader and S.Uduman and his one daughter - S.Hameed Natchial inherited the Suit Property in accordance with Islamic Law of Inheritance and became co-owners thereof.
3.1.Subsequently, all the sons and the daughter of O.A.Shamsudeen Maricar, relinquished their respective undivided shares in the Suit Property in favour of their mother - M.A.S.Kathija Cani vide registered Release Deed dated March 23, 2006. Thus, M.A.S.Kathija Cani became the absolute and exclusive owner of the Suit Property.
3.2.On May 5, 2007 Mrs.M.A.S.Kathija Cani entered into Sale Agreement offering to sell the Suit Property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.900/- per Kuzhi [total sale consideration being Rs.5,75,282/-], within the period of three months from the date of Sale Agreement. On the same day, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and on May 25, 2007, another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff as advance.
3.3.The plaintiff had ever been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract with the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,75,282/- . Unfortunately, M.A.S.Kathija Cani passed away on June 22, 2007 leaving behind all the aforesaid legal heirs to inherit the Suit Property in accordance with the Islamic Law of Inheritance. Thus, her sons were entitled to 2/9 undivided shares each and her daughter was entitled to 1/9 undivided share in the Suit Property.
3.4.After the demise of M.A.S.Kathija Cani, Mr.S.Sulthan Abdul Kader received Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on June 27, 2007 and Rs.25,000/- on July 12, 2007. The balance of sale consideration due to him is Rs.28,396/-. Similarly, Mr.S.Abdul Salam received Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on September 27, 2007. The balance sale consideration due to him is Rs.63,396/-.
3.5.The first defendant was informed of the Sale Agreement through one A.Abdul Lathif son of M.A.S.Abdul Kader Maricar of T.R.Pattinam and was requested to honour the Sale Agreement by executing the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and handing over the original Release Deed dated March 23, 2006 to her. But the first defendant informed the plaintiff through the said A.Abdul Lathif that he would do so, if she would pay him an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- over and above the amount to which he was legally entitled under the Suit Sale Agreement.
3.6.The plaintiff was ready with the balance of sale consideration of Rs.3,00,282/- to perform her part of the contract, but all the aforesaid legal heirs of M.A.S.Kathija Cani were not ready and willing to perform their part of the Sale Agreement.
3.7.While so, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant is attempting to sell a portion of the Suit Property to third parties. Hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated March 24, 2008 to the first defendant, his brothers and sister. All of them duly acknowledged the receipt of the notice. The brothers and sister of the first defendant, nam
