Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J
C.Gunasekaran – Appellant
Versus
P. Parvathy – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.566 of 2022
For the Appellant: Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For the Respondents: No appearance
The court established that specific performance is the default remedy for enforceable contracts if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Appeal against judgment and decree rejecting specific performance - Trial Court granted only alternate relief of refund for an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest due to alleged non-readiness and willingness of the plaintiff - Evidence showed that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract - Defendants did not substantiate claims regarding prior agreements or allegations of forgery. (Paras 10, 11, 13)
(B) The court ruled that under the amended provisions, specific performance is the rule with refund as an alternative if evidence proves readiness and willingness. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The suit arose from an agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased owner to sell property for Rs.12,00,000/-; however, after the owner's death, the defendants refused to honor the agreement citing prior obligations.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's judgment was found erroneous as the evidence supported the plaintiff's claims of readiness and willingness to complete the sale.
Issues: The court focused on the authenticity of the sale agreement and the readiness of the plaintiff to perform his contractual obligations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under the new legal framework, the presumption of willingness must favor specific performance unless substantial evidence contradicts it. (Para 14)
Result: The Appeal Suit is allowed; the judgment of the trial court is overturned in favor of the plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of sale agreement and claim. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense and denial of contractual obligations. (Para 10) |
| 3. evidence of readiness and willingness. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. final relief decision. (Para 14) |
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.455 of 2021 dated 15.09.2022, the relief of specific performance was rejected, but the alternate relief of refund of the advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was granted along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the sale agreement (08.01.2019) till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum on the advance amount till the date of realisation.
2. The suit was laid on the premise that one Perumal, the owner of the suit schedule property, along with his son Balaraman, agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff, Gunasekaran, through the sale agreement dated 08.01.2019. They jointly executed the sale agreement, received an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and execute the sale deed. The time fixed for performance of the contract was three years.
3. The plaintiff had demanded Perumal to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount, but due to illness, Perumal died on 20.02.2021, the defendants who are the wife and children of Perumal were requested to honour the agreement but they failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff hence issued a legal notice on 02.07.2021, calling upon the defendants to perform their contract. The defendants received the notice and issued reply dated 06.07.2021 with false allegations. In their reply, the defendants referred about an earlier agreement with Perumal and claimed that the agreement was barred by limitation. The agreement dated 08.01.2019 alleged t have been executed by Perumal was false and fictitious document created by the plaintiff. Since, there was a typographical error in the notice regarding the date of the agreement, fresh legal notice was sent by the plaintiff on 14.09.2021, containing correct date and facts. The learned counsel for the defendants received the notice on 20.09.2021. At the time of execution of the agreement on 08.01.2019, Perumal had handed over the original sale deed dated 22.01.2015 to the plaintiff.
4. Having performed part of the contract and ready and willing to perform the remaining part by tendering the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance, directing the defendants to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration and to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property or in the alternate, for a decree for refund of the earnest money deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the agreement till the date of realisation. The plaintiff also sought for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule property.
5. The fourth defendant filed written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations as totally false. He contended that the suit is frivolous and vexatious. It is not sustainable either in the eye of law or on the facts of the case. The suit cause of action alleged is an imaginary one. The relief sought for is not maintainable.
The suit claim is not properly valued and the Court Fees paid is not correct.
6. In fact, for the suit property, the plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement with the deceased Perumal on 20.09.2016, for total consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- and agreed to complete the sale within a period of three years, but the plaintiff did not turn up to pay the sale consideration and get the sale deed registered within the time prescribed. After the expiry o
